that Nalin was stateless and that he was incorrectly registered in the GBA as a Sri Lankan national. They explained that he was unknown to the Sri Lankan authorities as he had not been registered with the Sri Lankan embassy in the Netherlands. In the view of the Office, Nalin had a right to apply for Dutch nationality under Article 6(1)b Dutch Nationality Act (DNA).172 This was, however, denied by the IND, which claimed (based on the GBA registration) that Nalin was not stateless but Sri Lankan. An expert report containing information about Sri Lankan nationality law as well as an analysis of the incompatibility of the current Article 6(1)b DNA with Article 1 of the 1961 Convention was submitted to the municipality where Nalin lived.173 In the end the municipality was convinced of the boy’s statelessness and he has in the mean time acquired Dutch nationality under Article 6(1)b.174 Case law on Article 6(1)b DNA 123. The case law concerns either the requirement of having been stateless since birth or the requirement of lawful stay. 124. In a judgment by the Dutch Supreme Court (Hoge Raad) of 14 January 2005,175 the question was whether two minor children had been stateless from birth. In 1995, two Armenian nationals had entered the Netherlands with valid USSR passports, which were at the time accepted as valid by the authorities of the Republic of Armenia pending the approval of new citizenship legislation at the end of 1995, and applied for a residence permit on humanitarian grounds. No final decision had been taken on this application at the time of the decision by the Supreme Court. In 1997 and 1999, two daughters were born to the couple while in the Netherlands. In 2001, the parents tried to make an application for nationality under Article 6(1)(b) DNA on behalf of their children. The authorities refused, however, to grant nationality and the parents brought the case to court. The District Court investigated Armenian nationality law and found it likely that the parents possessed Armenian nationality and that therefore the children also possessed this nationality. The court held that, despite a letter from the Armenian consul that children of Armenians recognized as refugees elsewhere were not eligible for Armenian nationality; the parents had not proved that their children had been stateless since birth. The Supreme Court confirmed the decision by the District Court: the letter from the Armenian consul could have no effect, as the parents had not (yet) been recognized as refugees in the Netherlands. 125. A judgment by the Supreme Court of 28 March 2008 concerned a Syrian Kurdish family which had tried to apply for Dutch nationality on behalf of their minor daughter.176 The family had arrived in the Netherlands in April 1999, with only Syrian identity documents, issued by the Mukhtar (village head). The authorities refused to grant the application, 50 172  rticle 6(1)b: “After making a written declaration to that effect, the following persons shall acquire A Netherlands nationality ... : b) an alien who was born in the Netherlands ... and has been admitted to and who has had his or her principal place of residence there during a continuous period of at least three years and is stateless since his or her birth”. 173  .R. de Groot, ‘Notitie over de verwerving van de nationaliteit van Sri Lanka door afstamming’ G [Note on the acquisition of Sri Lankan nationality by descent], 19 June 2010 (on file with UNHCR). 174 Email message from the Office for Youth Care of 17 January 2011. On file with UNHCR. 175 Hoge Raad, 14 January 2005, LJN AR4847. 176 Hoge Raad, 28 March 2008, LJN BC7919. Mapping statelessness