Sudita Keita v Hungary The case had already been significantly relevant at the national level in Hungary. In 2015, the Constitutional Court of Hungary ruled that the domestic provision allowing only lawfully resident persons to apply for stateless status was unconstitutional and contravened international law. 3 The judgment concluded that the lawful stay requirement was a material provision that modified the definition of a stateless person and unduly narrowed the scope of art 1 of the 1954 Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons (‘1954 Convention’). 4 The Constitutional Court quashed the lawful stay requirement and Mr Sudita Keita was ultimately granted stateless status by the Hungarian authorities in October 2017. The complaints made by Mr Keita before the European Court of Human Rights refer to the difficulties in regularising his stay in Hungary in the period between 2002 and 2017. The Sudita Keita v Hungary judgment is noteworthy because it follows and reinforces the Court’s principles set out in the other landmark case of Hoti v Croatia (‘Hoti’), 5 providing consistency to a line of jurisprudence that addresses statelessness as a core issue and aims to extend protection to persons without a nationality. It reiterates that art 8 imposes a positive obligation on states to provide an effective and accessible procedure — or a combination of procedures — enabling the individual concerned to have the issue of their status determined, with due regard to private-life interests. 6 It particularly values the aim of the 1954 Convention, which is the main international treaty dealing with the status and rights of stateless persons. 7 FACTS Mr Keita is of Somali and Nigerian descent. He was born in 1985 and arrived in Hungary in 2002 without any valid travel documents. Mr Keita submitted a request for refugee status upon his arrival in Hungary. 8 His request was rejected and Mr Keita was issued with an expulsion order in April 2003. 9 Between 2003 and 2006, Mr Keita had no regular legal status in Hungary and was subject to an expulsion order, without entitlement to healthcare or employment. The Nigerian embassy in Budapest refused to recognise him as a national and the Hungarian authorities were unable to return him to Somalia during 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Case No. III/01664/2014 [2015] Constitutional Court of Hungary. Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons, opened for signature 28 September 1954, 360 UNTS 117 (entered into force 6 June 1960) (‘1954 Convention’). Article 1 of the 1954 Convention, which provides the definition of stateless person, does not admit reservations or modifications. The Constitutional Court concluded that this approach was further supported by the fact that the 1954 Convention distinguishes between rights that are accorded only to lawfully staying persons (eg right of association, right to work and housing) and rights that are accorded to all stateless persons, demonstrating that the lawful stay condition should not be applied in general. Hoti v Croatia (European Court of Human Rights, First Section, Application No 63311/14, 26 April 2018) (‘Hoti’). For further comment see Katja Swider, ‘Hoti v Croatia: European Court of Human Rights Landmark Decision on Statelessness’ (2019) 1(1) Statelessness & Citizenship Review 184. Sudita Keita (n 1) [41]–[42]. 1954 Convention (n 4). Sudita Keita (n 1) [1], [5]. Hungary only introduced a statelessness determination procedure and protection status in 2007. For further details, see Gábor Gyulai, Statelessness in Hungary: The Protection of Stateless Persons and the Prevention and Reduction of Statelessness (Hungarian Helsinki Committee 2010). Sudita Keita (n 1) [7]–[8]. 325