The determination of statelessness 141 Beyond these various considerations of a general scope, national courts have occasionally provided useful guidance on particular issues of interpretation. For example, the Metropolitan Court (Fővárosi Bíróság) in Hungary ruled in 2009 that an applicant’s previous rejected asylum claims, expulsion and criminal conviction are all irrelevant facts when deciding upon his application for stateless status86 (i.e., there is no ‘good conduct’ requirement in statelessness determination, except for particularly serious cases covered by the exclusion clauses of Article 1(2) of the 1954 Convention). The Italian Supreme Court of Appeal (Corte Suprema di Cassazione) held in 2007 that it is not necessary to prove the loss of a former nationality by an official state declaration. The loss of nationality can also be shown through the demonstration of acts by which the state denies protection to the individual concerned.87 The French Council of State (Conseil d’État) ruled in 2000 that the mere legal possibility of recovering one’s previously lost nationality does not exclude her or him from stateless status.88 Overall, it is evident that clear guidance on evidentiary burden, standards and guidance in law or regulations can make the process of determination more fair and efficient, as well as helping to avoid excessively lengthy procedures. 5.5. Conclusion The current decade is, without a doubt, a crucial one in the struggle against statelessness and for the protection of those affected by this undesirable phenomenon. After half-a-century of unjustifiable neglect, states, international organizations, the academic world and the civil sector seem to realize the severity of the problem and efforts to find suitable solutions are multiplying. This growing interest is particularly significant in the case of identification and protection of stateless persons, which has so far been terra incognita for most states and other actors (while, at least, the issues of avoidance and reduction of statelessness have received some limited attention). Yet the road to be travelled before stateless persons around the globe receive the support and protection they are entitled to on the basis of the 1954 Convention and international human rights law looks to be long and dusty. To start with, states and other actors must fi rst 86 87 88 Judgment no. 24.K.31.412/2009/6 of the Metropolitan Court. Judgment no. 14918 of 20 March 2007 of the Supreme Court of Appeal. Judgment no. 216121 of 29 December 2000 of the Council of State. 9781107032446c05_p116-143.indd 141 6/16/2014 3:12:04 PM