SUDITA KEITA v. HUNGARY JUDGMENT any relevant measures to inform the applicant about the possibility of applying for stateless status at that time (see paragraph 11 above). 39. It is also to be emphasised that, up until the decision of the Constitutional Court removing the “lawful stay” requirement from section 76(1) of the RRTN Act (see paragraph 19 above), it was practically impossible for the applicant to be recognised as stateless as he did not meet that requirement. Thus, in reality, contrary to the principles flowing from the 1954 UN Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons (see paragraph 23 above), the applicant, a stateless individual, was required to fulfil requirements which, by virtue of his status, he was unable to fulfil (see Hoti, cited above, § 137). 40. The Court also observes that, following the decision of the Constitutional Court of 23 February 2015 (see paragraph 19 above), it took the domestic courts until 11 October 2017 (see paragraph 20 above) to reach a final decision in the applicant’s case, ultimately granting him stateless status. 41. Having regard to the combined effect of the above elements, the Court is not persuaded that, in the particular circumstances of the applicant’s case, the respondent State complied with its positive obligation to provide an effective and accessible procedure or a combination of procedures enabling the applicant to have the issue of his status in Hungary determined with due regard to his private-life interests under Article 8 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Hoti, cited above, § 141; compare and contrast Abuhmaid v. Ukraine, no. 31183/13 § 126, 12 January 2017). 42. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention. II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 43. Article 41 of the Convention provides: “If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.” A. Damage 44. The applicant claimed 28,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage, corresponding to lost employment opportunities, and EUR 360,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. 45. The Government contested these claims. 46. On the one hand, the Court considers that the applicant has not demonstrated the existence of a causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged and therefore rejects this claim. On the other 9