The Law of 10 March 2024 established a procedure for admission to residence for stateless persons, challenged by several associations for the defence of third country nationals which claimed that several provisions of the law discriminated stateless people by comparison to the requirements for refugee applicants.

The court first held that the legislature is not required to treat stateless persons and refugees or persons enjoying subsidiary protection in the same way in all respects, particularly in view of the fact that stateless persons are not the subject of European legislation, unlike refugees or persons under subsidiary protection.

The court first noted that proof of identity and origin of the applicant requesting to remain for statelessness may be adduced by means of evidence other than written documents. In addition, persons who have renounced their nationality in good faith in the belief that they possessed or could acquire another nationality, fulfil the condition that the applicant for admission to stay for statelessness must have involuntarily lost the nationality.

Next, the court considered that the requirement that the applicant does not have a legal and durable residence permit in another State or that they cannot apply for one is sufficiently precise.

Also, the condition that the applicant may not acquire or recover the nationality of another State is not relevant in the light of the legislature's aim of guaranteeing a right of residence to persons recognised as stateless, as a person is stateless when they do not have a nationality, whether or not they can acquire or recover the nationality of another State.

Furthermore, the court held that the requirement that the applicant cannot demonstrate that they previously had a legal stay of more than three months or a stay as an asylum seeker, produces disproportionate effects, as stateless persons often do not have a prior residence permit. Moreover, since the contested procedure concerns stateless persons who do not fulfil the conditions for being recognised as refugees, the obligation to lodge an application for international protection beforehand entails additional constraints and time, and may delay the examination of all applications for international protection. The court therefore annulled this ground as well.

Several guarantees were also analysed by the court, including the right to be heard which was not compulsory, whereas it is mandatory for refugees. The court considered that a personal interview is an essential guarantee in an asylum or statelessness procedure and it was not reasonably justified that such an interview was not mandatory, also in view of the difficulty or even impossibility for applicants to produce written evidence. The court therefore annulled the provision in question in so far as it provided only for a mere possibility, and not an obligation, for the applicant to be heard.

Regarding the starting point for admission for statelessness, the court pointed out that European law requires the provision of a temporary residence permit for refugee applicants, whereas there is no similar obligation for persons who have applied for admission to stay as stateless persons. The court also noted that the contested provision has disproportionate effects in that it does not provide that the right of residence of five years begins when the judgment recognising the status of stateless person has become final. The court therefore annuled the contested provision to that extent.

Finally, the court rejected some claims concerning procedural rights and the rights of minors, while findind however that it is not reasonably justified that the law does not provide that proof of submission of the application for leave to remain as a stateless person is issued to the applicant and that it does not guarantee that, during the proceedings, no removal measure, except on grounds of national security or public policy, may be enforced. The court therefore annuls the contested law on those two points.

Therefore, the court annulled the law:

1. in so far as it provided as a condition that the applicant for residence for statelessness may not acquire or reacquire the nationality of another State,
2. in so far as it provided that the application is not to be taken into consideration where the applicant did not previously have a legal stay of more than three months or a stay as an asylum seeker,
3. in so far as it provided only for a mere possibility of hearing the applicant,
4. in so far as it did not provide that the right of residence of five years begins when the judgment recognising the status of stateless person has become final and
5. in so far as it did not provide that proof of the lodging of the application is to be issued to the applicant and in so far as it did not guarantee that during the proceedings no measure of removal from the territory or refoulement, except for reasons of national security or public order, may be enforced.