holding that the nationality of the daughter (and the parents) was “nationality unknown” and not “stateless”. The family started a procedure under Article 17 DNA before the District Court of The Hague for an order confirming that the child had acquired Dutch nationality under Article 6(1)b DNA. The District Court, relying on extensive research by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, upheld the authorities’ refusal, holding that the parents had not been able to sufficiently prove their (and their daughter’s) identity and nationality status.177 The Supreme Court, finally, held that the case could not lead to a cassation procedure because answering the complaints was not imperative in the interest legal uniformity (rechtseenheid) or the development of the law (rechtsontwikkeling). 126. In September 2010, the District Court in Zwolle handed down a ruling in line with the interpretation of Article 6(1)b DNA as advocated by UNHCR and the authors mentioned above.178 The case concerned a stateless Palestinian father (from Lebanon) who tried to apply for Dutch nationality under Article 6(1)b DNA on behalf of his minor son. It was neither disputed that both father and son were stateless, nor that the son had been born in the Netherlands and had resided there uninterruptedly for three years since his birth. Since the family had no residence permit, the authorities therefore refused, however, to grant nationality because of the fact that they did not meet the requirement of “lawful residence” (toelating). The court had regard to Article 94 of the Dutch constitution, which provides that treaty rules having direct effect prevail over national legislation. It found that Article 1(2)(b) of the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness had direct effect. This Article reads: “A Contracting State may make the grant of its nationality in accordance with subparagraph (b) of paragraph 1 of this article subject to one or more of the following conditions: … (b) That the person concerned has habitually resided in the territory of the Contracting State for such period as may be fixed by that State, not exceeding five years immediately preceding the lodging of the application nor the ten years in all.” 127. According to the court, “habitually resided” referred to the situation where someone “has his or her lasting place of residence (duurzaam verblijf) in the Netherlands and has developed a social life here”. It held that it cannot be inferred from the treaty text that the authorities must have agreed with this lasting place of residence. Consequently, it annulled (vernietigen) the authorities’ decision to refuse to grant Dutch nationality. Although the municipality initially appealed this ruling, the boy was later given a residence permit with retroactive effect and therefore became able to comply with the requirements of Article 6(1)b DNA. 177 Rechtbank Den Haag, 12 December 2006. 178  echtbank Zwolle-Lelystad, 9 September 2010, Jurisprudentie Vreemdelingenrecht 2011, nr. R 58, annotated by H. de Voer. For the view of the municipality involved, see G. Reijgersberg, “Jurisprudentie, onder redactie van mr. J.C. Tomson”, Burgerzaken & Recht, no. 10 (2010), 350-351. in the Netherlands 51