CCPR/C/125/D/2498/2014 lower court’s decision, finding that there was no obligation under international law to provide shelter for stateless persons, including minors. This decision cannot be appealed. 2.8 On 9 February 2012, the author applied to the Central Agency for the Reception of Asylum Seekers for money for Y. The application was denied and, on 5 October 2012, the administrative jurisdiction division of the Council of State rejected the author’s appeal against the decision denying her application. 2.9 On 15 June 2011, the author applied to the organization that implements national insurance schemes in the Netherlands, the Sociale Verzekeringsbank, for general (nonmeans-tested) child benefits (kinderbijslag). On 13 June 2012, her application was denied.2 On 10 April 2013, the District Court of The Hague deemed her appeal against the decision unfounded. The author’s appeal against that decision, submitted on an unspecified date, was pending at the time the communication was submitted. 2.10 On 15 June 2011, the author also applied to the benefits section of the Tax and Customs Administration for a (means-tested) child budget (kindgebonden budget). On 13 June 2012, the tax authorities rejected her application. The author objected to that decision, arguing that the denial of the benefits constituted a violation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and of article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the European Convention on Human Rights). On 27 August 2012, the tax authorities dismissed the author’s objection, on the ground that the author had not demonstrated special circumstances that would have allowed a child budget to be granted to an individual without a residence permit. On 19 February 2013, the District Court of The Hague declared the author’s appeal against the decision unfounded, finding that the denial of the child budget to aliens without residence permits could be discriminatory only when it concerned persons who could demonstrate very special circumstances. In the case of the author, the Court found no special circumstances, as she had not submitted proof of her statelessness and of her inability to leave the Netherlands.3 On 5 February 2014, the Council of State rejected the author’s appeal against the District Court’s decision. The Council found no violation of the author’s right to family life and to non-discrimination under articles 8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It did not find special circumstances that could justify granting the author a child budget. In addition, it argued that the child budget was not intended to guarantee its beneficiaries a subsistence level of income. With regard to the right of the child to an adequate standard of living under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Council considered that children’s rights were not at stake, as the beneficiaries of the budget were the parents, not the children. 2.11 On 28 October 2009, the author applied for a “no-fault” residence permit, claiming that she was stateless through no fault of her own. On 3 November 2009, the application was denied. On 20 November 2009, the District Court of The Hague declared the author’s application for review unfounded. On 21 August 2012, the author filed another application for a no-fault residence permit, which was denied by the State Secretary of Justice on the same date. 4 On 18 July 2013, the District Court of The Hague denied the author’s application for review.5 2.12 In December 2012, the Advisory Committee on Migration Affairs published a report entitled No Country of one’s own, which concerned protection for stateless persons under international treaties. The Advisory Committee considered that the Netherlands was not 2 3 4 5 According to the State party’s initial observations, the application for general child benefits was denied because the author was not a lawful resident and was therefore not entitled to the benefits. In its initial observations, the State party indicates that, according to the District Court of The Hague, “the argument that the situation involved statelessness and the impossibility of leaving the Netherlands had not been – sufficiently – substantiated. Nor did the financial situation constitute a special circumstance, because it had not been argued or demonstrated that not granting child budget would lead to a humanitarian emergency situation.” The information relating to this application was provided by the State party. According to the translation provided by the author, the District Court found that, although the author was stateless, she had not met the burden of proving that she was not responsible for the situation. 3