Litigation Toolkit on Statelessness: Volume II October 2022 comply with its positive obligation to provide an effective and accessible procedure or a combination of procedures enabling the applicant to have the issues of his further stay and status in Croatia determined amounted to a violation of the right to private and family life under Article 8 ECHR. The Court determined that the applicant was stateless and emphasised that statelessness was a relevant factor towards establishing Croatia’s violation of the ECHR. • Sudita Keita v. Hungary, Application No. 42321/15 (12 May 2020) A stateless person faced protracted difficulties in regularising his legal situation, and was recognised as stateless only after residing in Hungary for 15 years. During 13 of those years, the applicant had no legal status in Hungary and was entitled to neither healthcare nor employment, nor was he able to marry. The Court held that Hungary had not complied with its positive obligation to provide an effective and accessible procedure enabling the applicant to have his status in Hungary determined with due regard to his private-life interests under Article 8 ECHR. • Savickis and Others v. Latvia, Application No. 49270/11 (9 June 2022) This case concerns the difference in treatment between citizens of Latvia and ‘permanently resident non-citizens’ of Latvia with regard to the calculation of their pension rights. For the latter group, employment periods accrued outside of Latvia prior to 1991 in other parts of the USSR are excluded from the calculation. The Court found that direct difference in treatment on the grounds of nationality in pensions does not violate the ECHR, as when determining that difference in treatment, Latvia pursued a legitimate aim and this measure was proportionate to that aim. It noted that applicants decided not to naturalise in Latvia, where they resided. The Court also found that the assessment of whether the difference in treatment is justified by 'very weighty reasons' (test applied where there is a direct different of treatment on the sole ground of nationality) must be carried out considering the wide margin of appreciation in this case. Pending cases • Dabetic v. Italy, Application No. 31149/12 (communication published 26 July 2021) The application concerns the difficulties of the applicant, a stateless person of Slovenian origin, in regularising his status in Italy. The applicant has been residing in Italy and, since 2006, made several attempts at obtaining a determination of his statelessness and a residence permit, both through the administrative and judicial procedure. He was only recognised as stateless in 2013. The judgment of the ECtHR is still pending. ENS and the AIRE Centre submitted a thirdparty intervention analysing States’ obligations under Articles 8, 13, and 14 ECHR and under the 1954 Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons. It notes that the lack of an accessible and effective route to regularisation for stateless persons will not be justified if it is a disproportionate interference with an individual’s right to respect for private and family life, and that individuals must have a genuine possibility of accessing measures or mechanisms to regularise their status as stateless persons. This third party 6