should grant to stateless persons in their territory52 and does not ensure a range of rights that stateless persons are entitled to under the 1954 Convention.53 Hence it provides for a significantly lower standard than the one accorded to recognised refugees. Thus, a decision declaring statelessness status does not constitute access to the rights under the 1954 Convention until the moment of obtaining a tolerated stay visa using the above-described procedure. Moreover, the option of obtaining the tolerated visa is not available to all recognised stateless persons. Individuals who have previously been sentenced to expulsion54 do not have any opportunity to legalise their resident status despite their recognized statelessness. They are, therefore, left permanently without access to the rights under the 1954 Convention.55 Thanks to the first case–law, developments have taken place in 2019 also in relation to the legal status of applicants for the determination of statelessness status which is not regulated in the Asylum Act. In March and April 2019, the Supreme Administrative Court of the Czech Republic issued two decisions on this issue.56 In both cases the Court agreed with the appellants, i.e. the applicants for the determination of statelessness. The Supreme Administrative Court declared the action of the MoI, under which the Ministry had refused to grant legal status to the applicants during the proceedings on their applications under Section 8 (d) of the Asylum Act and had not responded to their requests to be issued with a certificate confirming that they were applicants for the statelessness status [‘applicant identity card’], to be unlawful. The Supreme Administrative Court held that the MoI was obliged to apply per analogiam the provisions of the Asylum Act on international protection not only in relation to the procedural aspects of the proceedings on applications for determination of statelessness, conducted under Section 8 (d) of the Asylum Act, but also in relation to the applicants’ rights. The Court found that during the determination of statelessness proceedings, the MoI should have applied the Asylum Act and, per analogiam with its Section 57,57 issue the applicants an applicant identity card. The court explicitly held that “it would be unfair if the defendant [MoI] had discretion to select only those provisions of the Asylum Act, which are convenient for it, […] in other words to opt for procedural and substantive rules on an ad hoc basis, and thus not transparently.”58 The Supreme Administrative Court supported its conclusion by referring to the Explanatory Memorandum of the Asylum Act, according to which in the proceedings on applications under Section 8 (d) of the Asylum Act “the mechanisms for the proceedings on international protection shall be used.”59 It also referred to Article 25 of the 1954 Convention and the UNHCR Handbook, “according to which the rights under the Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons are formulated almost identically with those under the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, and it is therefore 20 52 UNHCR recommends a residence permit valid for at least two years, although permits for a longer duration, such as five years, are preferable, while such permits should provide the possibility of facilitated naturalisation as prescribed by Article 32 of the 1954 Convention. UNHCR, Handbook on Protection of Stateless Persons, 30 June 2014, para. 148, available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/53b676aa4.html. 53 This is a standard afforded to persons lawfully staying in the territory of the respective State. See, UNHCR, Handbook on Protection of Stateless Persons, cited above, para. 150. 54 This is frequently due to the impossibility to leave the Czech Republic further to an earlier imposed administrative expulsion, whereby the elements of the criminal offence of frustrating the execution of an official decision are found. 55 Section 56 (1) (c) of the Act on the Residence of Foreign Nationals, under which a tolerated stay visa shall not be issued to persons recorded in the register of undesirable persons (which records, inter alia, people subject to administrative expulsion or a sentence of expulsion). This provision of the Act on the Residence of Foreign Nationals affords an exemption only to individuals to whom the MoI has issued, during proceedings on administrative expulsion, a ‘negative binding opinion’ on the possibility to depart from the Czech Republic. In cases of a sentence of expulsion, such binding opinions are not envisaged. 56 The Supreme Administrative Court’s judgment of 12 March 2019, file no. 4 Azs 365/2018, and the judgment of 9 April 2019, file no. 7 Azs 488/2018, available, at: www.nssoud.cz. 57 Section 57 (1) of the Asylum Act provides: “An international protection applicant identity card shall be issued by the Ministry to an applicant for international protection no longer than within 3 days of the provision of information in support of his/her application for international protection.” 58 The Supreme Administrative Court’s judgment of 12 March 2019, file no. 4 Azs 365/2018, para. 9, and judgment of 9 April 2019, file no. 7 Azs 488/2018, para. 11. 59 Explanatory memorandum for Act No 314/2015, which inserted the provisions of Section 8 (d) into the Asylum Act. Faces of Statelessness in the Czech Republic