The Broadening Protection Gap from this recognition, nor do they receive a residence permit. 22 If a person is recognised as stateless by the courts, they can apply for a residence permit ‘for humanitarian reasons’ with the Immigration Office. If the decision of the administration is negative, an appeal can be filed (legality control) before the Council for Alien Law Litigation (‘CALL’). 23 2 Application of the Definition of a Stateless Person to Palestinians Until 2016, persons who could demonstrate their Palestinian origin and show that they did not acquire the nationality of a country that they previously resided in, were recognised as stateless by all Belgian courts. 24 In the northern half of the country, however, jurisprudence has shifted. The courts of appeal in Ghent, Brussels (Dutch language role) and Antwerp have ruled that Palestine can be considered a state for the purposes of art 1 of the 1954 Convention, 25 and that the applicants did not succeed in demonstrating they were not considered as nationals by this state. 26 The first limb of this approach has been validated by the Court of Cassation, the highest civil court, while appeals are pending challenging the second prong. 27 (a) Whether Palestine Can Be Considered a State There has been considerable debate in Belgian jurisprudence on what criteria should be applied to determine whether an entity, in casu Palestine, can be considered a state for the purposes of art 1 of the 1954 Convention. The debate 22 23 24 25 26 27 Carine Rustom and Quentin Schoonvaere, Mapping Statelessness in Belgium (Report, United Nations Human Rights Commissioner, October 2012) 48 [221]–[222] (‘Mapping Statelessness’); Establishing Statelessness Determination Procedures to Protect Stateless Persons (Good Practices Paper No 6, United Nations Human Rights Commissioner 11 July 2016) 2–3; Julie Lejeune and Wout Van Doren, ‘Statelessness in Belgium: A Blurred Landscape’, European Network on Statelessness (Blog Post, 7 March 2019) <https://www.statelessness.eu/updates/blog/statelessness-belgium-blurred-landscape>; Avis Conjoint du Réseau Européen sur l’Apatridie et de NANSEN sur la Proposition de loi modifiant la loi du 15 décembre 1980 sur l’accès au territoire, le séjour, l’établissement et l’éloignement des étrangers, en vue de régler le droit de séjour des apatrides [Joint Opinion of the European Network on Statelessness and NANSEN on The Bill Modifying the Law of 15 December 1980 on the Entry, Stay, Settlement and Removal of Foreign Nationals, Regarding the Regulation of Stateless People’s Ability to Remain] (Report, European Network on Statelessness and NANSEN 1 March 2019) <https://www.statelessness.eu/sites/default/files/2020-09/NANSEN_ENS-Avis-ConjointApatridie.pdf>. Loi Du 15 décembre 1980 sur l'accès au territoire, le séjour, l'établissement et l'éloignement des étrangers [Law of December 15 1980 on the Entry, Stay, Settlement and Removal of Foreign Nationals] (Belgium) art 39/2. Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg West-Vlaanderen, Afdeling Brugge, Sectie Burgerlijke Rechtbank, App No 14/1508/B, 23 November 2015 (Court of First Instance, Brugge) <https://www.agii.be/sites/default/files/20151123_rb_brugge.pdf> . See below Part III(A)(2)(a). See below Part III(A)(2)(b) Regarding the first limb, see Hof van Cassatie van België [Belgium Court of Cassation], App No C.16.0325.N1, 23 January 2017 <http://www.agii.be/sites/default/files/20170123_cass.pdf> (‘Cassation C.16.0325’). The appeals to the second limb are not public at the time of writing. 305