Childhood Statelessness i European Courts: An Avoidable Crisis 7 same, when sometimes they not only differ but must be examined separately. Failing to consider a child’s claims independently may lead to violations of a child’s rights and offend the best interests of the child principle.28 Further, “overly strict requirements that a child act through his or her parents are common and can seriously stymie children’s access to the courts.”29 Some courts have recognized this danger and underscored the obligation of a court to consider a child’s claims and personal circumstances separately from the parents;30 others have failed to do so.31 One response to “the potential conflict of interest between parents and children” is representation by a third party, which can bring neutrality to the litigation in addition to potentially providing more support for a child’s claims.32 If not direct representation, many courts allow third parties to participate in other ways including as an amicus party or an intervenor, which “will enable the broader, more strategic issues, to be taken up.”33 The type of involvement impacts the use and balance of resources in an intervention by an NGO, which is always a significant concern.34 The distribution of cost and effort spread between litigants may benefit a child applicant. Nevertheless, these children remain at the mercy of all those involved. Further, in the end, some courts may refuse the participation of non-party organizations. Another response to child protection and advocacy in the context of litigant roles is the idea of a dedicated, often court-appointed, representative to guide the child through the process while protecting his/her interests. This role boasts several names – guardian, guardian ad litem, safeguarder, representative, litigation friend, next friend – and the existence and the effect of this representative differs based upon what jurisdiction the litigation takes place. No matter the label, “[t]here is an international consensus in the literature that children need representation, particularly in public law proceedings affecting their care, welfare or liberty.”35 Despite this consensus, such representatives or advocates are not always present. Notably, there are different rules pertaining to different types of courts. Family courts, for example, may pay significantly more attention to child advocacy than criminal courts or administrative bodies dealing with issues of immigration, asylum or statelessness.36 Underlying all else, legal standing guides how a child’s complaint may come before a court. These rules determine who has the right to be a litigant, how an initial application or complaint shall be filed, through whom a child may file a complaint, and at what age an individual may proceed without required representation. Likewise, standing dictates the level of participation that may be enjoyed by interested third parties. For example, in venues such as the CJEU, third-party rules are “strict” and involvement “requires a thorough knowledge of both EU law and procedure before the CJEU.”37 Litigators thus may base their choice of venue on these rules, if different jurisdictions are available to them. Some consider bringing actions before international courts “notoriously difficult to pursue for any private individual, let alone children.”38 Whether national courts present an easier path to justice depends upon the state. 2.1.2 Child Participation Intertwined with litigant choice is child participation. This paper attempts to understand the correlation between such elements and case outcomes. It seems evident that children should be recognized as a spe28 Fenton-Glynn (n 18). 29 Child Rights International Network (CRIN), ‘Rights, Remedies & Representation: Global Report on Access to Justice for Children’ (January 2016) 17. <https://archive.crin.org/sites/default/files/crin_a2j_global_report_final_1.pdf> accessed 11 March 2025. 30 See, e.g., Fabio Arlyn Timogan and Others v. Evan Ruth and Another (2020) HKCA 971, CACV 32/2020; Case No. LVwG-2018/14/1219-1 (2019) Austria Tirol Administrative Court; Case No. 898/2009 (2024) Montenegro, Administrative Court. 31 See, e.g., A,B,C,D,E gegen Staatsekretariat für Migration, F-6073/2014 (2017) Switzerland Federal Administrative Court (Bundesverwaltungsgericht). 32 Fenton-Glynn (n 18) 650-51. See also ENS (n 19), Vol I. 33 Goodwin-Gill (n 9). 34 Amnesty (n 9). 35 Andy Bilson and Sue White, ‘Representing children’s views and best interests in court: an international comparison’ (2005) 14(4) Child Abuse Review 220, 233. 36 See, e.g., Cafcass, ‘How Cafcass can help you’ (2024) <https://www.cafcass.gov.uk/about-us/how-cafcass-can-help-you> accessed 11 March 2025. 37 ENS (n 19) Vol 1, 27-28. 38 Stalford (n 15) 217.