20 George was Romanian by birth, born in Romania in 1983, to Romanian parents. When he was just seven years old, his family decided to emigrate. After spending several years in Germany, his parents renounced Romanian citizenship on behalf of all members of the family in the hope of securing German nationality. They were not, however, successful and George has remained stateless ever since, despite returning to Romania over a decade ago.152 This is one example of how a child of European citizens can end up without any nationality, in circumstances entirely beyond his or her control – a problem that can then become entrenched and difficult to resolve, even when the child attains adulthood. This section explores the different circumstances in which children of European citizen parents may come to face statelessness.153 PROBLEMS ACCESSING NATIONALITY THROUGH JUS SANGUINIS Since Europe favours the transmission of nationality by descent, from parent to child (with jus soli provisions only playing a secondary role), it seems counterintuitive that children of European parents could also be at risk of statelessness. Yet, European jus sanguinis systems are not all unrestricted and in some cases, additional conditions must also be met for a child to inherit nationality.154 Practical impediments may also have the effect of preventing the child from accessing his or her parents’ nationality in practice. Previous ENS research has provided an insight into some of the problematic scenarios, which include where registration is necessary for the acquisition of nationality by a child born abroad and evidence of paternity requirements are imposed for the transmission of nationality from the father in cases where a child is born out of wedlock.155 In 2010, the European Court of Human Rights found the latter policy to be in violation of articles 8 and 14 of the ECHR, in the landmark ruling of Genovese v. Malta.156 Following the delivery of this judgement, Austria, Denmark and Sweden amended their legislation – in 2013, 2014 and 2015 respectively.157 In both Denmark and Sweden, a child born to a citizen father after the entry into force of the new law automatically acquires nationality, regardless of the place of birth or whether the parents are married.158 The Austrian amendment “upheld a differentiation between ‘legitimate’ and ‘illegitimate’ children. If born out of wedlock, the child will only be Austrian if the Austrian father recognises the child before birth or within eight weeks thereafter (art. 7a new)”.159 As such, it remains at odds with the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. Moreover, the lack of retroactive effect of these amendments means that the situation of any children rendered stateless due to the previously problematic law is not addressed through this reform. TWO MUMS OR TWO DADS: THE RIGHT TO A NATIONALITY FOR CHILDREN OF SAME-SEX COUPLES? While gender discrimination seems to be on its very last legs in the nationality laws of Europe, an emerging problem that came to light in ENS’ research into European practice with respect to jus sanguinis conferral of nationality is that children of same-sex couples can experience difficulties in inheriting nationality from their parents. The enjoyment of LGBTI rights varies across Europe, including with respect to the recognition of same-sex partnerships or marriages. The non-recognition of same-sex unions in some countries can have the knock-on effect of blocking the recognition of the maternal or paternal ties of children. The Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights is currently pursuing a court case in Poland on behalf of two men, one of whom is a Polish citizen, who are bringing up four children born via surrogacy in the United States.160 Both men are registered as parents in the US-issued birth certificates of these children, however the Polish authorities have so far refused to recognise this document (instead, requiring details of the children’s biological mother’s identity) and by consequence the children have not been able to access their father’s nationality.161 Here, the European Court of Human Rights decision in Mennesson v. France is relevant,162 as it concerned the duty of the French state to act in accordance with the best interests of the child in recognising the legal relationship with his/her parents – even when the circumstances of the child’s birth are problematic from the perspective of French domestic law.163 The July 2015 ruling of the Court in Oliari and others v. Italy that legal protection for same sex partnerships is necessary under article 8 of the ECHR should further strengthen the claim of children of same-sex couples to legal recognition of the familial ties and consequent access to nationality.164 Another case that has come up through the Polish legal system and is now being taken to the European Court of Human Rights, in which a same-sex couple of two women (one British, one Polish) are fighting for both of their names to appear in their child’s birth certificate in Poland may further clarify these matters when it is decided.165 In a case before the District Court of Ljubljana, Slovenia, a ruling was reached along similar lines to the Mennesson judgement. The Slovenian same-sex couple which brought the case had married in California and subsequently been recognised by a US court as the equal and legal parents of a baby girl who was born through a surrogacy arrangement. Slovenian law does not allow for adoption by same-sex partners, nor does it permit surrogacy or adoption by more than one person unless the adopters are spouses (and, at the time, same-sex marriage was not recognised in Slovenia so the couple was not deemed to be married under Slovenian law). Nevertheless, the Slovenian District Court ruled that the foreign judicial decision must be recognised – and with it the parental link and the rights deriving from that, including acquisition of Slovenian nationality.166