2020 Statelessness & Citizenship Review 2(2) culminated when in 2016 the Court of Appeal of Ghent 28 was overturned by the Court of Cassation, 29 which found Ghent’s reasoning contradictory; it held, on the one hand, that the question whether Palestine was a state needed to be answered according to the principles of the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (‘Montevideo Convention’), 30 while on the other hand stating that recognition by other states is determinative, even though the Montevideo Convention excludes recognition as a criterium for statehood. The Court of Appeal of Ghent subsequently changed its jurisprudence and applied the four criteria of the Montevideo Convention — permanent population, defined territory, government and capacity to enter into relations with other states. 31 The Court found that Palestine fulfils these criteria and did not analyse further the other components of the definition in art 1 of the 1954 Convention. 32 The two other courts of appeal in the northern half of the country followed suit. 33 The Court of Cassation, confirmed that the four criteria of the Montevideo Convention are determinative when deciding whether an entity should be considered a state, and that recognition by other states is in principle not relevant. 34 Because of its limited powers of appreciation, however, the Court of Cassation could not scrutinise the application of these four criteria to the concrete case at hand. In the southern half of the country (and at the Dutch-speaking First Instance Family Tribunal of Brussels) however, the prevailing jurisprudence remains that Palestine is not an independently functioning state. Therefore, persons who demonstrate their Palestinian origin and show they did not acquire the nationality of a country that they previously resided in, have a greater chance to be recognised as stateless. 35 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 App No 2015/AR/3257, 16 June 2016 (Ghent Court of Appeal) <http://www.kruispuntmi.be/sites/default/files/20160616_gent.pdf>. The Court held that even if it would be accepted that Palestine fulfills the four conditions for statehood set out in the Montevideo Convention, and despite the restrictions due to the ongoing Israeli control/occupation, recognition by the international community remains decisive. See Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States, opened for signature 26 December 1933, 165 LNTS 19 (entered into force 26 December 1934) (‘Montevideo Convention’). While acknowledging that the political existence of a state does not depend on recognition by other states (at art 3), the Court found that the fact that a significant number of states have not officially recognised Palestine as a state remains problematic. In these circumstances, the Court found that a sovereign (functioning) Palestinian state does not exist. Cassation C.16.0325 (n 28). Montevideo Convention (n 28) art 1. ibid. App No 2017/FE/0029, 31 May 2018 (Ghent Court of Appeal) <https://www.agii.be/hof-vanberoep-gent-31-05-2018>. App No 2017/FA/707, 5 June 2018 (Brussels Court of Appeal) <https://www.agii.be/sites/default/files/20180605_brussel.pdf>; App No 2018/EV/6, 3 October 2018 (Antwerp Court of Appeal) <https://www.agii.be/sites/default/files/20181003_antwerpen.pdf>. App No C.18.0400.N1, 18 February 2019 (Belgium Court of Cassation) <http://jure.juridat.just.fgov.be/pdfapp/download_blob?idpdf=N-20190218-4>. See the judgment of App No 2019/FU/20, 30 January 2020 (Court of Appel Liège), summarised in Newsletter Mars 2020 No 162 [Newsletter March 2020 No 162] (Newsletter, Association pour le Droit des Étrangers March 2020) <https://www.adde.be/publications/newsletter-juridique>. Note that an appeal against this decision is pending before the Court of Cassation. There are a number of cases of the Court of First Instance Liège in support of these propositions, on hand with the author. See also App No 106/253B/2017, 3 April 2017 (Dutch-Speaking Court of First Instance Brussels). 306