Legal briefing: Statelessness and the right to respect for private and family life October 2024 where the alleged violations have a continuous character. This was affirmed by the Grand Chamber in Kurić as the repercussions of ‘erasure’ had continued to adversely affect the applicants for more than fifteen years.71 In the groundbreaking case Ghadamian v. Switzerland,72 the ECtHR held that States had a positive obligation to regularise foreign nationals who are unlawfully present on their territory.73 In that case, Switzerland refused to issue a residence permit to an elderly foreign national from Iran, who had been living in the country for over 50 years and cited strong family and social ties in Switzerland. The applicant was residing unlawfully because a deportation decision issued against him had not been enforced due to the lack of an Iranian passport.74 The Court found that the arguments put forward by the national authorities (i.e. relating to the applicant’s previous decisions to leave the country, his unlawful residence since 2002 and his previous convictions for criminal offences75) were relevant but not sufficient grounds, considering the applicant’s situation. The Court considered the applicant’s extremely long stay in Switzerland, his close ties to the country, his advanced age, the lack of relationships still existing in Iran, and the lack of serious criminal offences since 2005.76 Therefore, the Court found that Switzerland breached its positive obligation under Article 8 ECHR to regularise a foreign national who was unlawfully present, and found that a fair balance had not been struck between the public interest in immigration control and the applicant’s right to respect for private life and interests in continuing to reside in Switzerland.77 While the applicant in this case was not stateless, the Court’s findings are relevant to stateless persons irregularly present within a country. In such a case, the individual’s statelessness would also likely be a relevant consideration when striking a fair balance between public interests and the right to respect for private and family life.78 The protection of stateless persons and routes to regularisation were also addressed in the cases of Sisojeva and Others v. Latvia79 and Konstatinov v. The Netherlands.80 However, in both cases, no violations of Article 8 ECHR were found. In Sisojeva and Others v. Latvia, the Court affirmed that Article 8 ECHR cannot be construed as guaranteeing the right to a particular type of residence permit.81 In this case, the Government’s measures would allow one applicant to obtain an identity document for a person with 71 ECtHR, Kurić and others v. Slovenia (application no. 26828/06), 26 June 2012, paragraphs 240-241. 72 ECtHR, Ghadamian v. Switzerland (application no. 21768/19), 9 May 2023. This applies under the ECHR. For a contrast in EU law, see CJEU, Case C-352/23, LF v. Zamestnik-predsedatel na Darzhavna agentsia za bezhantsite, 12 September 2024. In this case, the CJEU held that Member States are not required to grant, on compelling humanitarian grounds, a right to stay to third-country nationals who currently reside unlawfully in its territory, irrespective of the duration of their stay in that Member State. 74 ECtHR, Ghadamian v. Switzerland (application no. 21768/19), 9 May 2023, paragraph 53. 75 ECtHR, Ghadamian v. Switzerland (application no. 21768/19), 9 May 2023, paragraphs 47-49, 52. 76 ECtHR, Ghadamian v. Switzerland (application no. 21768/19), 9 May 2023, paragraphs 55-59. 77 ECtHR, Ghadamian v. Switzerland (application no. 21768/19), 9 May 2023, paragraphs 60-64. See also Strasbourg Observers, Eva Sevrin, ‘The exceptional case of Ghadamian v. Switzerland: Private life and the obligation to regularize migrants’ (August 2023). 78 See ECtHR, Hoti v. Croatia (application no. 63311/14), 26 July 2018, paragraphs 110, 128. 79 ECtHR, Sisojeva v. Latvia (application no. 60654/00), 15 June 2007. 80 ECtHR, Konstatinov v. The Netherlands (application no. 16351/03), 26 April 2007. 81 ECtHR, Sisojeva v. Latvia (application no. 60654/00), 15 June 2007, paragraph 91; See also ECtHR, Kaftailova v. Latvia (application no. 59643/00), 7 December 2007 (struck out), paragraph 51. 73 16