THEMATIC BRIEFING: October 2025 Statelessness determination and protection in Europe: good practice, challenges and risks authorities of a State where an applicant alleges a well-founded fear of persecution, until any asylum claim is fully resolved.35 The assessment must take into consideration that determining statelessness requires proving a negative – that the applicant is not considered a national by any State under the operation of its law. It is generally much easier for State authorities to establish a positive – that a person is a national – than it is for a stateless person to prove a negative – that they are not a national. This power imbalance should be considered when assessing the available evidence. Due to the nature of their status, stateless people already face significant challenges to acquire documentary evidence, which are often exacerbated by their circumstances, such as lack of financial means, lack of legal representation and/or support, personal histories of persecution and/or exclusion, and language barriers. Burden of proof Considering the difficulties inherent in proving statelessness, the burden of proof should be shared between applicant and examiner, so that the applicant and the authority cooperate to obtain evidence and establish the facts. In many countries, the assessment of statelessness falls short of international standards as clear evidentiary rules are lacking or these do not take account of the difficulty of proving statelessness, but there is some good practice. In Georgia, while the burden of proof is on the State, the applicant must submit all necessary documentation and has a duty to cooperate with the competent authority, who must investigate all circumstances relevant to the case and may request additional information from foreign countries or other Georgian authorities. In France, Latvia, Kosovo, Moldova, Montenegro, Netherlands, Spain, Türkiye, Ukraine, and Italy (judicial procedure), the burden of proof is explicitly shared between the applicant and the competent authority. In some countries, the courts have played an important role in developing evidentiary rules for statelessness determination. For example, in Hungary, the Hungarian Supreme Court confirmed that the burden of proof is shared, and the lack of identity documents, as well as the impossibility of obtaining such documents due to reasonable circumstances, cannot be automatically considered a violation of the applicant’s duty to cooperate.36 In Spain, the Supreme Court has stated that there is an ‘obvious obligation of cooperation on the part of the Administration’ and that it is enough for applicants to ‘manifest their lack of nationality’.37 In Bulgaria, the Supreme Court confirmed in 2023 that the administrative authority must verify whether a person is stateless or not during the administrative proceedings if this is in doubt (although this is yet to be implemented in practice). 38 In terms of remaining barriers, several countries place the burden of proof on the applicant, including Albania, Belgium, Italy, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom, as well as Italy in its administrative procedure. In Switzerland, there may be exceptions, but the threshold is very high. In Ukraine, the competent authority often requests applicants collect and submit documents prior to submitting the application and has been reported to orally refuse an application if this is not done. The administrative procedure in Belgium has a very high evidentiary threshold, which presents a significant barrier to applicants, as they must demonstrate their identity, origin, statelessness from birth or involuntary loss of nationality, and inability to acquire nationality or permanent residence in another State. 13