THEMATIC BRIEFING: October 2025 Statelessness determination and protection in Europe: good practice, challenges and risks context (for example, centrally or locally), provided the authority has adequate expertise and the procedure remains accessible. In Europe, SDPs are generally managed by central government bodies, most often within Ministries of Interior or Justice. Fully centralised systems include Albania, Czechia, France, Kosovo, Latvia, Spain, Ukraine, the United Kingdom, and Georgia. In Bulgaria, while applications may be submitted regionally, assessment is conducted centrally at the Ministry of Interior. More decentralised models are seen in Moldova, Hungary, Montenegro, Türkiye, and Switzerland, where a central authority is formally responsible for determining statelessness, but implementation occurs through regional or local offices. Some countries offer both an administrative and a judicial route to determine statelessness. This is the case in Belgium and Italy, which have a centralised administrative route under the umbrella of the Ministry of Interior, and a judicial route through specialised divisions of the civil court (in Italy) or the family courts (in Belgium) – in Belgium, however, recognition under the judicial procedure does not lead to any protection or rights. The Netherlands has a decentralised administrative procedure whereby municipalities and certain government bodies can determine statelessness in cases of ‘obvious statelessness’, and also a centralised judicial procedure – but neither of these routes leads to residence or protection. In some countries, formal dedicated training on statelessness has regularly been provided to competent authorities (e.g. Bulgaria, Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine), and in others this has been more ad hoc (e.g. in France, Latvia, Montenegro, and the United Kingdom). In some of these countries, training on statelessness is also provided to judges and lawyers, either as integral to their professional training, or delivered by UNCHR and NGOs. However, such civil society initiatives tend to be ad hoc and may be affected by recent funding cuts. In some countries, such as in Montenegro, decentralisation of competency for the SDP to regional units has led to inconsistent practices. Similarly, where there are both administrative and judicial procedures, such as in Belgium, Italy, and the Netherlands, there are different eligibility criteria and outcomes, leading to confusion and misinformation on how a stateless person can access their rights. Many countries do not provide any formal training on statelessness to competent authorities, judges, or lawyers, and a reliance on NGOs and international organisations is often subject to short-term project funding and other resource and capacity limitations. Ex officio initiation and cooperation between agencies There should be cooperation between agencies that may have contact with stateless people so potential applicants can be referred to the procedure. Safeguards in law permitting State authorities to initiate the procedure ex officio (on their own initiative) are also recommended. 31 In most countries, it is left to affected individuals to initiate the SDP on their own behalf, which is particularly problematic considering the lack of information about procedures and how to apply. Many stateless people are unaware of the existence of an SDP or may fear approaching public authorities. Stateless women, children, people with disabilities, older people, marginalised and minoritized groups are particularly disadvantaged in such circumstances if State authorities do not put measures in place to guarantee substantive equality of access to procedures and protection. In some countries, such as Moldova, Spain, Kosovo, and the United Kingdom the procedure can be initiated ex officio by government officials (i.e. at their initiative), but this is rarely used in practice. Similarly, there is cooperation between agencies that may have contact with stateless people in some countries, including Bulgaria, France, Georgia, Hungary, Latvia, Moldova, and Spain, but individuals are not always consistently referred to the SDP. Few countries have formal mechanisms for referral or cooperation between 11