2020 Statelessness & Citizenship Review 2(2) about the possibility of requesting stateless status and about the procedures involved, a duty that the authorities disregarded in this case. 26 3 States’ Obligations to Provide Effective and Accessible Procedures The Court recognised that the requirements imposed by Hungarian law on Mr Keita made it practically impossible for him to be recognised as stateless and perpetuated a situation of uncertainty, contravening the principles of the 1954 Convention according to which stateless persons should not be imposed requirements that they are unable to fulfil by virtue of their status. 27 The 1954 Convention includes an exhaustive list of exclusion grounds and, in light of its aim, it does not allow states to establish further material conditions or limitations for stateless persons to access protection — for instance, requiring applicants to be lawfully staying in the territory or establish time-limits for individuals to claim stateless status. 28 The Court further noted that the domestic authorities took over 19 months to reach a final decision in the applicant’s case after the Constitutional Court issued its ruling. 29 The combined effect of the aforementioned arguments led the Court to conclude that Hungary had failed to comply with its positive obligation to provide an effective and accessible procedure, or a combination of procedures, enabling the applicant to have the issue of his status determined with due regard to his private-life interests, resulting in a violation of art 8. 30 ANALYSIS The Court has been progressively developing its case law and embracing the international legal framework for the protection of stateless people, analysing new cases that take into account stateless persons’ point of view and their rights. The Court considered that the applicants’ statelessness was an important element in the cases and integrated the principles of the 1954 Convention in its analysis. 31 However, the Sudita Keita judgment contains an unfortunate reference to de facto statelessness, as the Court asserts that when the Nigerian embassy refused to recognise the applicant’s Nigerian nationality he was rendered ‛de facto stateless’ from that point in time. 32 The analysis of whether a person is stateless should follow the definition established in art 1(1) of the 1954 Convention, which requires 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Government Decree 114/2007 (V 24) Korm. on the Implementation of Act II of 2007 on the Admission and Right of Residence of Third-Country Nationals (Hungary), cited in Sudita Keita (n 1) [11], [38]. Sudita Keita (n 1) [39]. Gábor Gyulai, ‘The Determination of Statelessness and the Establishment of a StatelessnessSpecific Protection Regime’ in Alice Edwards and Laura van Waas (eds), Nationality and Statelessness under International Law (Cambridge University Press 2014) 130–31; Handbook on Protection of Stateless Persons (UNHCR 2014) [69]–[70] (‘Handbook on Protection of Stateless Persons’). Sudita Keita (n 1) [40]. ibid [41]–[42]. ibid [35]; Hoti (n 5) [128]. Sudita Keita (n 1) [38]. 328