Oleksandra Zmiyenko Saggi – DPCE online, 2020/4 ISSN: 2037-6677 EU’s competences in the field allows for the identification of the reasons of that approach. A comparative analysis of a selection of EU Member States’ legislation results in a nuanced understanding of the fragmentation of the system across several policies, from the prevention of new statelessness cases to the identification and protection of stateless persons. Regardless of the interpretation of the concept of ‘legal identity’ and its components, there is already a clear diversity in the practices related to birth registration in the selected Member States. As the above comparison has shown, not only the (lack of) adherence to key international instruments differs across the countries, but also the practical obstacles in obtaining legal status, even if it concerns a status of a de jure stateless person, should be taken into consideration while assessing the access to legal identity. Providing legal identity would be a first step, or even the main step to grant the ‘right to have rights’ to the ones who are stateless, and whose numbers are growing. 4. Conclusion. 5269 Statelessness remains a hidden phenomenon among the challenges caused by forced displacement. International recognition of the necessity to address this legal vacuum led to the adoption of instruments that have, however, a limited impact. The 1954 and 1961 Conventions have not been ratified by a significant amount of the countries, including by several EU Member States. Given the apparent lack of competence in Member States’ nationality matters, the role of the EU in addressing statelessness in the context of forced migration seems to be negligible. This impuissance is not constant: not only has the CJEU pronounced on a number of cases related to citizenship, therefore restricting absolute state discretion in the matter, there are also provisions in the Treaties related to immigration and asylum that might serve as a legal basis for the EU involvement in statelessness issues. Considering the context of forced migration, a comparative analysis of the legal framework and practice related to prevention of new causes of statelessness and identification and protection of stateless persons in four selected Member States showed a lack of coherence in addressing statelessness in the EU. The case studies of Germany, Italy, Hungary and Poland illustrated gaps in the legislative framework related to statelessness. Imperfect legislation combined with an inconsistent application of the law may imply a possibility of being born stateless in the ‘area of freedom, security and justice’. A lack of harmonized statelessness determination procedures allows for incoherence in the identification of statelessness and further obstacles in the protection of stateless persons. Even without thorough conceptualisation of ‘uncertainty’, entire matter reflects Commission, Sustainable Development Goals), therefore only the latter refers to internal measures.