The European Court of Human Rights has considered a number of cases in relation to stateless persons.236 In applying the provisions of the Act, “[t]he duty of national courts is to keep pace with the Strasbourg jurisprudence as it evolves over time: no more, but certainly no less”.237 This chapter will examine some of the principles that derive from the caselaw of the European Court of Human Rights, and how it should be applied to the particular situation of stateless persons to ensure appropriate legal protection. The testimony of the participants in the project shows that, at present, these principles are not always applied in practice. 5.2.2 International refugee law The UK owes stateless persons who are also refugees obligations arising from the 1951 Convention.238 A refugee is defined in the relevant part Article 1A(2) of the 1951 Convention as being a person who: “…owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.”239 These obligations are cemented in EU law by the Qualification Directive.240 The UNHCR Prato Summary Conclusions find that “[i]f a stateless person is simultaneously a refugee, he or she should be protected according to the higher standard which in most circumstances will be international refugee law, not least due to the protection from refoulement in Article 33 of the 1951 Convention”.241 However, not all stateless persons are refugees.242 Stateless persons claiming asylum in the UK are entitled to be treated in accordance with the minimum standards contained in the Reception Conditions Directive243 and to have their 92 236 For example, Karassev and Family v. Finland, 31414/96, Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights, 12 January 1999, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/45d076a92.html Silvenko v. Latvia Application No. 48321/99, Kuric and Others v. Slovenia, Application no 26828/06, Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights, 13 July 2010, available at: http://www.unhcr. org/refworld/docid/4c3f01312.html. 237 Ahsan Ullah v. Special Adjudicator; Thi Lien Do v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, [2002] EWCA Civ 1856, United Kingdom: Court of Appeal (England and Wales), 16 December 2002, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/404f17c04.html, at 350 per Lord Bingham. 238 189 U.N.T.S. 150, in force 22 April 1954, UK ratification 11 March 1954. 239 Note that the Convention does not apply to those who fall within Article 1D, 1E and 1F. 240 Council Directive 2004/83/EC of the European Union on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted, (hereafter “the Qualification Directive”). 241 UNHCR, Prato Summary Conclusions, para. 5. 242 See Ravenko v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2000] EWCA Civ 50 where the Court of Appeal held that that a stateless person who is unable to return to his or her country of habitual residence is not a refugee unless he or she is able to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution. 243 Council Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003 laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum-seekers, (hereafter “the Reception Conditions Directive”). Mapping statelessness