Case Note been resolved’. 25 The ECtHR found that such a temporary residence permit is not ‘a measure removing the uncertainty of the applicant’s residence status of which he complains’. 26 Although the ruling was in the applicant’s favour, it is interesting to note that the reasons put forward by the applicant to substantiate his claim were not reflected in the Court’s reasoning. The applicant claimed that he had been ‘erased’ from the register of residents in the aftermath of the Yugoslav war, 27 and invoked the precedent of Kurić v Slovenia (‘Kurić’). 28 The Kurić case is a highly influential decision dealing with citizenship policies and state building practices of successor states, making it a logical point of appeal for an applicant in Mr Hoti’s situation. 29 In particular, in Kurić, the ECtHR declared that Slovenia’s policy of ‘erasing’ former Yugoslav citizens who did not become citizens of Slovenia from the population registry amounted to a violation of the ECHR. 30 The Government in its submission tried to distance the case from the context of state succession, and instead framed it as the situation of a foreign national seeking to establish legal residence, and from whom it is reasonable to require a travel document. 31 It emphasised the personal responsibility of Mr Hoti to communicate with the state of his alleged nationality, Albania, about obtaining a travel document, or alternatively to substantiate why he was unable to have one. 32 While ruling in favour of the applicant, it is interesting to observe that the Court dismissed the applicant’s line of reasoning concerning the erasure, 33 and engaged with the Government’s arguments on the nationality status of the applicant. In particular, the Court contested the Government’s standpoint that the applicant is merely a foreigner seeking admission to Croatia. Instead, according to the Court, Mr Hoti’s situation is that of an alien who, irrespective of many years of actual residence in a host country, [was] not able to regularise their residence status and/or their regularisation of the residence status was unjustifiably protracted. 34 By categorising Mr Hoti as a special case of a long-term stateless resident, the ECtHR established Croatia’s responsibility to ensure his right to private life through access to a stable residence status. B Determination of the Applicant’s Statelessness One of the most fascinating aspects of the judgment is that the ECtHR on its own authority determined the applicant to be stateless. This is particularly controversial 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 ibid [77]. ibid [82]. ibid [89]. Kurić (n 3). Following the Kurić case, Slovenia amended its laws and practice to remedy the situation of the ‘erased’, and established a compensation scheme for the violation of Convention rights that resulted from the erasure. More details can be found in a follow-up decision of the European Court of Human Rights: see Anastasov (n 3). In particular, the violations of arts 8 (availability of remedies) and 13 (non-discrimination). See Kurić [9], citing ECHR arts 8, 13. Hoti (n 1) [100]–[104]. ibid [102], [103]. It considered that the applicant was never included in the registry of permanent residents in Croatia in the first place, and therefore could not have been erased. See ibid [111]–[114]. ibid [118]. 187