158 marinai covered all those without an effective nationality, by considering that all de facto stateless persons were refugees.6 Indeed, the Geneva Convention, with its definition of refugees, does not cover all persons who de facto lack national protection, but rather covers only those who are unwilling or unable to return to their country of origin because of a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion.7 However, in the Final Act of the Conference that led to the adoption of the 1954 Convention it was recommended that each Contracting State give sympathetic consideration to the possibility of according the same treatment as that provided for by the Convention to persons who have renounced the protection of the State of which they are nationals. Although this recommendation does not expressly use the term de facto stateless persons, it is commonly believed that it was referring to this category of subjects. With reference to the Italian legal system, the implementing legislation8 says nothing that would extend the status of statelessness to de facto stateless persons. However, in the case law of the Corte di Cassazione, it seemed to have been accepted that it is appropriate to equalize the regimes for the recognition of de facto and de jure stateless persons. In particular, according to Judgment No. 25212/2013 of the Corte di Cassazione,9 designation of the condition of statelessness is possible not only in the case of the formal lack of the possession of citizenship in the country of origin, but also when the interested person cannot, from a substantive point of view, take advantage of the rights linked to citizenship that he or she still formally possesses.10 By contrast, the decision discussed in this comment refers to another ruling of the Corte di Cassazione (No. 7458/2020)11 in order to argue that the New York Convention applies only to de jure stateless persons and consequently that the 6 7 8 9 10 11 Batchelor, “Statelessness and the Problem of Resolving Nationality Status”, International Journal of Refugee Law, 1998, p. 156 ff., p. 172. van Waas, Nationality Matters. Statelessness under International Law, Antwerp, 2008, p. 21. Law No. 306 of 1 February 1962, Ratifica ed esecuzione della Convenzione relativa allo status degli apolidi, adottata a New York il 28 settembre 1954, Gazzetta Ufficiale della Repubblica Italiana, 7 June 1962, No. 142. Corte di Cassazione (Sez. I civile), Ministero dell’Interno v. Perez Lozada, 8 November 2013, No. 25212. Among other rulings extending stateless status to cases of people with a substantial loss of nationality (de facto statelessness), see Corte di Cassazione (Sez. Unite Civili), M.J.C.A. v. Prefettura – Ufficio Territoriale del Governo di Bologna, 9 December 2008, No. 28873; Tribunale di Bologna, M.M.S.E. v. Ministero dell’Interno, Order of 31 December 2018. Corte di Cassazione (Sez. I penale), Varuna Drago, 25 February 2020, No. 7458. The Italian Review of International and Comparative Law 2 (2022) 154–162