EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM The CJEU has not yet ruled on how to identify the country of reference in a case where the applicant has been deprived of their nationality in a way that is contrary international law. Depending on national practice, two different approaches are currently being followed. 1. An applicant who has been arbitrarily deprived of their nationality will be considered stateless (if they do not hold any other nationality) because they would no longer be considered as a national under the operation of the law of the state that denationalised them. Their protection needs will thus be assessed in respect of their country of former habitual residence (which could be the denationalising state or another country). 2. An applicant who has been arbitrarily deprived of their nationality will be considered stateless (if they do not hold another nationality) but their protection needs will, in any case, be assessed in respect of the country of (former) nationality of the denationalising state, regardless of whether the person has ever lived there and thus regardless of whether it can be considered a country of former habitual residence. If the applicant has always lived in the denationalising country, choosing one approach over the other will not have any implications for the examination of their international protection needs. The country of former habitual residence and the denationalising country (and therefore the country of reference) are the same. However, if the applicant’s country of former habitual residence is not the denationalising country, approach 1 may lead to a protection gap based on your national law and practice. In some situations, assessing their needs for international protection regarding the country of former habitual residence (and not the denationalising country) could mean overlooking any acts that could amount to persecution or serious harm to which the applicant may have been subjected in their former country of nationality. This situation may in particular affect members of the diasporas who have spread from their original country to other countries, sometimes over several generations. See further on the act of denationalisation and its consequences in Section 7.1.1. Deprivation of nationality as a form of persecution or serious harm. On the other hand, under approach 2, even if the applicant is no longer a national, the country would still be considered as a reference country. Practical example The applicant is a national of country A. He has never lived in country A but has resided his whole life in country B (without ever acquiring the nationality of country B or of any other country). One day, he learns that country A has arbitrarily stripped him of his nationality. If you determine that the stateless applicant’s country of reference is the country of former habitual residence, country B, you examine the applicant’s protection needs in that country only (where he may not have a fear of persecution or serious harm). However, this approach disregards country A, the denationalising country. What may be a potential act of persecution or serious harm in country A – the fact that the applicant was deprived of his only nationality (and the consequences it caused) – will never be examined if country A is not considered as country of reference. However, this would not preclude considering country B as a country of former habitual residence for assessing the need for international protection, depending on national practice (see further on the topic of protection in Section 6.4. Stateless applicants: return or protection). 34