ECtHR Decision Fails to Hold Italy Accountable for Obligations toward Stateless Persons
Strasbourg – The Open Society Justice Initiative condemns yesterday’s decision from the European Court of Human Rights to declare the application in Dabetić v Italy inadmissible—criticizing it as a missed opportunity for the court to affirm its own case law on protections for stateless persons under the European Convention on Human Rights. The applicant, Velimir Dabetić, was left in a state of limbo for seven years during which he applied for but failed to obtain statelessness status in Italy after losing his nationality due to the breakup of the former Yugoslavia. The court found that Dabetić could no longer claim to be a victim of a violation of the Convention because in January 2013 he successfully obtained status as a stateless person.
“This decision disregards not only the severe impact living in a prolonged legal limbo has had on our client’s private life, but the situation of other stateless persons in Italy,” said Juliana Vengoechea Barrios, senior managing litigation officer at the Justice Initiative, which lodged an application on behalf of Dabetić before the ECtHR alongside local counsel Saccucci & Partners in 2012.
“By finding the application inadmissible, the court has shied away from scrutinizing the persistent deficiencies in Italian legislation governing the determination of statelessness status. These deficiencies are particularly the failure to adopt norms and practices that conform to international law, and are equitable, rational, efficient, and transparent,” said Andrea Saccucci, founding partner at Saccucci & Partners. “This continues to place undocumented stateless persons at risk of expulsion or unfair immigration detention and leaves them with no other option than a long and disproportionately burdensome process to seek a regular stay.”
Following the breakup of the former Yugoslavia, Dabetić, along with thousands of others under what is known as “the erasure,” was removed from Slovenia’s list of permanent residents, and his subsequent application for citizenship in Slovenia was rejected. When Dabetić’s Yugoslav passport expired in 2002, he lost his right to live and work in Italy, where he moved to in 1989. Even though Dabetić applied for statelessness status in Italy multiple times, Italy failed to grant this for seven years, which Dabetić and the Justice Initiative argue was in violation of his rights under the European Convention.
Dabetić’s struggle to remediate his legal status spanned two decades, during which he had neither nationality nor stateless status, the latter of which would have given him minimum rights under the 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons. This left him unable to work, claim benefits, or use government services and put him at risk of being arrested and deported at any point.
By deeming the application inadmissible on the grounds that Dabetić had lost his victim status following the regularization of his status, the Justice Initiative argues that the ECtHR disregarded its own case law. For example, in the cases of Konstantin v. Russia and Gäfgen v. Germany, a decision or measure favorable to the applicant was not sufficient to deprive of victim status unless the national authorities acknowledged and afforded redress for rights violated. In Dabetić’s case, Italy has failed to acknowledge that his rights have been violated or to provide any compensatory measures.
Other rulings in favor of greater protections for stateless persons have been issued by the ECtHR since Dabetić first lodged his application, which the Justice Initiative believes should have been followed in the case. This includes the Strasbourg court’s ruling that the inability of stateless persons to regularize their status may prevent them from leading a normal private life, in violation of Article 8 of the Convention on the right to private and family life. The court has further recognized the adverse repercussions that the uncertainty of residence has on a person’s private life, including employment prospects and access to health care. In another case, it ruled that the vulnerability and insecurity of stateless persons left them in a state of legal limbo. Where stateless persons do not have recourse to effective and accessible mechanisms to regularize their status, the Court has found that this amounts to a difference in treatment under Article 14 of the Convention on the prohibition of discrimination.