Litigation Toolkit on Statelessness: Volume II October 2022 KEY JUDGMENTS ON STATELESSNESS FROM REGIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL MECHANISMS Below is a list of key judgments on statelessness from regional and international courts and bodies. More detailed case summaries and further cases from national courts can be accessed in the Statelessness Case Law Database (https://caselaw.statelessness.eu/), a free online resource containing summaries of national, regional and international jurisprudence covering Europe, managed by the European Network on Statelessness (ENS) with contributions and support from ENS members and partners. The case summaries included in this toolkit and the database either directly concern the rights of stateless people or address other connected human rights issues that impact on people without a nationality. For accuracy and completeness, readers should refer to the original judgments and decisions, which are available online on HUDOC, CURIA and OHCHR. 2.1. Children’s right to a nationality European Court of Human Rights • Genovese v. Malta, Application No. 53124/09 (11 January 2012) Maltese authorities denied Maltese nationality to a child on the basis that they were born out of wedlock to a Maltese father and a British mother. Domestic legislation only conferred nationality to children born out of wedlock if the mother was Maltese. The Court rejected the argument advanced by the Maltese Government that this case was justified on the basis that a mother is always certain, whereas a father is not. It concluded that no reasonable grounds were adduced to justify such a difference in the treatment of the applicant and found a violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8 ECHR. • Mennesson v. France, Application No. 65192/11 (26 September 2014) The case concerns the refusal to grant legal recognition in France to parent-child relationships that had been legally established in the United States between children born as a result of surrogacy treatment and the couples who had had the treatment. The Court found that totally prohibiting the establishment of a relationship between a father and his biological children born following surrogacy arrangements abroad was a violation of Article 8 concerning the children’s right to respect for their private life, under Article 8. 3