THEMATIC BRIEFING: October 2025 Statelessness determination and protection in Europe: good practice, challenges and risks example, in child-rights-based or gender-based interviewing techniques) and aware of any cultural sensitivities or relevant personal facts about the applicant, and are of the same gender as the applicant. States should also consider that nationality laws may discriminate directly or indirectly against women and other groups, and that legislative provisions which appear gender neutral may have a disproportionately negative impact on the enjoyment of the right to nationality by women, girls, and people identifying as LGBTIQ+. Some countries have introduced measures to prevent discrimination against children and people with disabilities, but there is little or no evidence of effective measures to guarantee substantive equality for women and other groups at risk of (multiple) disadvantage in SDPs. In relation to children, in Albania, Bulgaria, Georgia, France, and the United Kingdom, a child applicant will only be interviewed if their legal representative or guardian is present. In Latvia and Montenegro, the law requires consideration of the best interests of the child and principles of equality and non-discrimination. More broadly, in some countries, such as Ukraine, Moldova, and Hungary, the law recognises the additional support needs of some vulnerable groups such as unaccompanied minors, people with disabilities, and people with language, literacy, or health-related barriers, but practical measures are not always implemented. The bylaws of Ukraine provide for the possibility of the competent authority to carry out a home visit or visit to a medical institution to interview the applicant, and in Moldova people with disabilities can be accompanied by a carer. In Hungary and the United Kingdom, although there are some considerations made for children and other groups in the law or guidance for authorities, this is not always followed in practice. In most other countries, procedures are applied to children and other vulnerable groups without adaptation from the general SDP, and the burden of proof remains with the applicant. With the exception of France, Hungary and Moldova, it is unclear whether unaccompanied children are provided with a guardian or granted legal aid.43 In some countries, such as Türkiye, there are special provisions for unaccompanied children in international protection procedures, but these do not extend to the SDP. Guidance for decision-makers and reliable country of origin information For an adequate assessment of a statelessness claim, determining authorities should benefit from clear guidance, including accurate and reliable country of origin information relating to statelessness, to assist in establishing the material facts and circumstances. In some countries, guidance is provided on the assessment of statelessness applications, either in law or in additional guidelines issued for decision-makers – including in Hungary, the Netherlands, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom. In Moldova, Spain, and Türkiye this guidance is not publicly available. Some countries have also produced country of origin information specifically on statelessness, including France, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. In other countries, decision-makers rely on information produced by NGOs, such as Asylos, and regional and international organisations, such as the EU Asylum Agency. Remaining barriers include that in several countries, including Albania, Bulgaria, France, Georgia, Italy, Kosovo, Latvia, and Montenegro, competent authorities lack sufficient guidance on how to assess SDP applications. There is also a lack of comprehensive and consistent country of origin information on statelessness, and in most countries, it is unclear to what extent decision-makers rely on the resources published by civil society or international or regional organisations. Errors in decision-making Clear and standardised guidance and resources for decision-makers impacts on the quality of decisions, and is critical to avoiding significant errors in decision-making.44 Some countries report common errors in decision-making, including in relation to admissibility criteria, failure to examine relevant evidence, and failure to implement higher judicial decisions or case law from 15