Legal briefing on the rights of stateless Palestinians in the UK September 2025 4. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AFFECTING PALESTINIANS 4.1. Family reunification While there is no right to family reunification outlined in the Refugee Convention or the 1954 Convention, the importance of the family unit is protected extensively in international treaties.145 It has also been emphasised by the ECtHR, which stated that ‘family reunion was an essential element in enabling persons who have fled persecution to resume a normal life’. 146 Thus, the ECtHR has found that the meaning of family life under Article 8 includes a right to family reunification for refugees, and may require positive obligations on the part of the State.147 This standard applies to all refugees, including those who are stateless. In this context, difficulties evidencing statelessness, and the fact that stateless persons often lack documentation to demonstrate their family links by nature of their statelessness, should be taken into account.148 It is particularly important that the lack of documentation doesn’t undermine the credibility of the applicant. The ECtHR also held that States are under certain procedural obligations when processing requests for family reunification, namely that decision-making must guarantee ‘flexibility, promptness and effectiveness’149 and ‘give due consideration to the applicant’s specific situation’. 150 The margin of appreciation is narrower in cases concerning vulnerable persons, such as stateless persons and refugees.151 Denying stateless persons and refugees the right to family reunification solely on the basis that they are not able to provide the documentation required, would be an interference which may be disproportionate and not justified under Article 8(2) ECHR. Although the right of stateless persons to family reunification is not explicitly outlined in the 1954 Convention, it can also be inferred from Article 32. This provision requires Contracting States to facilitate ‘as far as possible […] the assimilation and naturalization of stateless persons’, which arguably could imply family reunification given the importance of the family unit.152 The ECtHR is yet to rule in a case specifically concerning family reunification in the context of statelessness, although a case concerning this matter is pending before the Court.153 145 The importance of the family unit is protected in international law in numerous Conventions, including Article 16(3) UDHR; Article 23(1) ICCPR; Article 10(1) ICESCR; Article 10(1) UNCRC. See UNHCR, Family Reunification for Refugees and Other Beneficiaries of International Protection (2024) para 4. 146 ECtHR, Tanda-Muzinga v. France, application no. 2260/10 (10 July 2014) para 75. For further information on Article 8 ECHR in the context of family reunification, see ENS and The AIRE Centre, Legal Briefing: Statelessness and the Right to Respect for Private and Family Life (2024) p 18-19. 147 ECtHR, M.A. v. Denmark, application no. 6697/18 (9 July 2021) para 135. 148 Betsy Fisher, The Travaux Préparatoires of the 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons (2022) p 119. See also, ECtHR, Hoti v. Croatia, application no. 63311/14 (26 July 2018) paras 126, 136-137. 149 M.A. v. Denmark (fn 147) para 138. 150 Tanda-Muzinga v. France (fn 146) para 82. 151 Hoti v. Croatia (fn 148) para 122. 152 See ENS and The AIRE Centre, ‘Statelessness and the Right to Respect for Private and Family Life’ (n 146) p 18-19. 153 See ECtHR, Suji v. Greece, application no. 13250/23 (communicated 20 September 2023); AIRE Centre, Dutch Refugee Council, ECRE and ENS, Suji v. Greece: Written submissions on behalf of the intervenors (24 February 2024). 31