Stateless person not defined in law Austria and Ireland have not fully incorporated the 1954 Convention into domestic legislation and there is no definition of a stateless person in domestic law. The absence of a legal definition is a serious barrier for stateless people seeking protection. For example, Irish legislation contains various references to stateless persons, but the lack of a clear definition means that statelessness is only considered in an ad hoc way by the competent authorities, and there is no official guidance on how to determine or claim statelessness. Cyprus and Poland are not parties to the 1954 Convention and have not defined a stateless person in their domestic law, but there are several references to stateless persons in their legislation, which creates confusion. Narrow definition of a stateless person Some countries have a definition of a stateless person in law that is narrower than Article 1(1) of the 1954 Convention. For example, several countries define a stateless person as someone who is not considered as a national by any State ‘according to its legislation’ or ‘under its laws’ (or a similar formulation), rather than ‘under the operation of its law’, removing the vital consideration of how laws are applied in practice. 23 In Albania and Türkiye, the definition only refers to a person who is not a national of any State, without the operative part of the 1954 Convention definition. In some countries translation has caused issues, such as in Spain where the definition in the Spanish version of the 1954 Convention is more restrictive than the English and French versions, which has led to the courts in Spain issuing judgments stating that a stateless person is a person who does not have the right to acquire a nationality. Grounds for exclusion that go beyond the 1954 Convention The 1954 Convention only permits States to withhold protection from people excluded under an exhaustive list of grounds.24 However, Bulgaria, Hungary, Latvia, and Switzerland have established exclusion grounds either explicitly in the definition of a stateless person or in other provisions, which unduly exclude some stateless people from the protection of the 1954 Convention. Bulgaria has far-reaching grounds to refuse statelessness status, including being in possession of expired identity documents, having been issued a removal order for irregular stay, and lack of means of subsistence. Hungarian law automatically excludes from statelessness status someone whose stay ‘violates or endangers the national security of Hungary’ (although it is unclear if this has been used in practice). In Latvia, the law excludes ‘non-citizens’ from the definition of a stateless person, who are defined separately in domestic law and not considered stateless by national authorities. 25 In Switzerland, the authorities only recognise people as stateless if they have lost their nationality through no fault of their own and the individual must demonstrate an interest worthy of protection (‘schutzwürdiges Interesse’). This means they must show that they would be in a better position if recognised as stateless, although practice has changed based on recent jurisprudence which found that, in principle, a person always has a legitimate interest in having their statelessness recognised. In Albania and Montenegro, asylum applicants and beneficiaries of refugee status or subsidiary protection may not apply for the SDP. In Ukraine, people who were previously issued a return or deportation decision, including due to irregular stay, are not allowed to apply for the SDP until that decision is cancelled.