46 Bianchini (4) they are much slower in providing a long term solution than statelessspecific protection regimes;56 and (5) the readmission agreements do not ensure: (a) respect for human rights during and upon return (some of them generally recognize the need to respect human rights, but fail to provide concrete protection); (b) issuance of travel documents, identity documents and inclusion in civil registries; (c) recognition of a right to lawful residence.57 5 Travel Documents for Stateless Persons The first sentence of Article 28 of the 1954 Convention grants stateless persons ‘lawfully staying’ in the territory the right to obtain travel documents from the country of residence for the purpose of international travel, unless compelling reasons of national security or public order require otherwise. These provisions of the Convention are sufficiently precise and can be immediately applied without the need of implementing legislation.58 The Federal Administrative Court clarified that the cause of a person’s statelessness is not important for his claim under the first sentence of Article 28 of the 1954 Convention.59 For example, a voluntary renunciation of nationality causing statelessness does not exclude application of the first sentence of 56 57 58 59 Ibid 289. According to UNHCR, readmission agreements should not be applicable to stateless persons unless they ensure these conditions. UNHCR, ‘Action to Address Statelessness. A Strategy Note’ (Report) (2010) 16. It should be noted that, according to UNHCR, a stateless person can be considered to receive protection in another country when: (a) he is able to acquire a nationality through a simple and non-discretionary procedure; or (b) has permanent residence status in a country of previous habitual residence. UNHCR, Guidelines on Statelessness No. 3: The Status of Stateless Persons at the National Level (2012) (hereafter Guidelines on Statelessness No. 3) para 35. BVerwG 16.10.1990, BVerwGE 87, 11, 13; BVerwG, 16.07.1996, DVBl 1997, 177; Hailbronner, Brenner, Maaßen, (n 5) I.G.IV.2.27. BVerwG, 16.07.1996, InfAuslR 1997, 58-60. This decision states that (1) statelessness itself is not affected by the way it came into existence (so the cause of a person’s statelessness is irrelevant for the general application of the Convention); (2) a stateless person has no obligation to eliminate his statelessness; (3) the cause of a person’s statelessness is not important for an entitlement based on the first sentence of Art. 28. However, different principles apply if the travel document is claimed under the second sentence of Article 28, as that is a discretionary clause and the authorities can take the causes of a persons’ statelessness into account when making their decision. tilburg law review 19 (2014) 35-51