Stateless people face the risk of rights violations every day because most European States lack a proper process to determine statelessness and provide a route out of limbo.
This marks the final blog in our SDP blog series. In this series, our members describe the work they are doing in countries across Europe to push for change, progress made and what still needs to be done.
Why Germany needs a statelessness determination procedure
The determination of statelessness in Germany has so far not been formally standardised at the national (federal) level. As a result, identification and recognition are inconsistent across different regions and lead to legal uncertainty. Due to a lack of visibility as well as legal gaps and the absence of relevant regulations, guidance, or information for authorities, tens of thousands of people live in Germany without a recognised nationality, including many who may be stateless or at risk of statelessness.
The legal and policy framework on statelessness in Germany
The legal and policy framework on statelessness in Germany presents a mixed picture, with both positive and negative aspects. Germany is a party to both the 1954 and 1961 Statelessness Conventions, and to almost all relevant regional and international human rights instruments. However, and despite these international obligations, Germany does not have a Statelessness Determination Procedure (SDP).
Statelessness can be identified if it arises during certain administrative procedures, such as an asylum claim (assessed by the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees). If the asylum claim is refused, the person can also apply to the local foreigners' office for a form of lawful stay known as ‘Duldung’ or ‘tolerated stay’, which allows them to remain in Germany for the time they cannot be removed. However, this documents an irregular stay, the obligation to leave still exists, and it enables access only to very basic assistance and restricted employment.
Statelessness can also be identified during an application for a travel document, or for other kinds of residence permit, such as family reunification or study permits. But without an SDP, which would provide a dedicated mechanism to formally determine statelessness and grant statelessness status, stateless people are not granted any protection status nor rights (unless they are also recognised as refugees).
When statelessness is not adequately assessed, people are often registered as having “undetermined nationality”, and they remain without a recognised legal status for prolonged periods of time. This administrative category should be used for the shortest possible time until identity or statelessness is clarified, but in practice it is often used indefinitely. This prevents people, including many born in Germany, from obtaining residence permits, identity and travel documents, and may also lead to barriers in certifying the birth and verifying the nationality status of their children.
For more information, see the Germany chapter of ENS’s Statelessness Index or this joint ENS/Statefree Toolkit on Identifying Statelessness in Germany.
Addressing data challenges
Population data in Germany is comprehensive, but without an SDP, estimates for the stateless population remain inaccurate. There is a ‘stateless’ category in the data collection system but there are also overlapping categories (such as “undetermined” or “unclear” nationality, “Palestine” and “Soviet”). This indicates that the number of people who are stateless or at risk of statelessness in Germany could be significantly larger.
According to the Central Register of Foreigners (AZR), there are 28,815 people recorded as stateless in Germany, and 94,715 people as having “undetermined nationality / unspecified”. Over one-third are minors, and the number of stateless people born in Germany or to German nationals abroad has significantly increased over the last decade.
The data on Palestinians is also inconsistent, as people of Palestinian origin may be recorded as “stateless”, from the “Palestinian territories” or with “undetermined nationality”, depending on the documentation they present. There is also a large group of nearly 60,000 people who are registered as having the citizenship of States that no longer exist (e.g. the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Serbia and Montenegro, Czechoslovakia).
At present, the AZR does not systematically record the qualitative information needed to assess and trace statelessness determinations. As recommended and advocated by Statefree in its submission on the proposed draft law on Modernising Immigration Administration, qualitative information should also be recorded and include whether a person is stateless, which evidence is available, and the basis on which statelessness has been recognised. This change is necessary to ensure decisions determining statelessness are recorded and traceable.
Current challenges in administrative procedures
Legal gaps and the absence of standardised regulations, guidance, or information create uncertainty among decision-making authorities when identifying statelessness, and can lead to different individual outcomes even in similar circumstances. Caseworkers report high levels of individual discretion, subjective approaches and a lack of centralised data consolidation.
There is also a lack of communication and exchange of information between relevant authorities that come into contact with stateless people. People with “undetermined nationality” must repeatedly prove their identity and statelessness in each procedure. The lack of a legal framework and standardised approach leads to serious administrative issues, including heightened burden of proof on the applicants, duplicated proceedings, contradictory decisions, and significant delays.
A centralised determination procedure, ideally carried out with the involvement of the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF), would reduce reliance on individual expertise and create a legally secure and consistent practice.
In 2020 and 2025, the Federal Administrative Court ruled (in a naturalisation case) that applicants should only be asked to provide evidence that they can realistically obtain if they cooperate to the best of their ability. The court established a step-by-step model for identity verification, starting with the provision of a passport (if possible), but allowing other forms of evidence if stronger evidence is not possible to obtain: identity or travel documents, other official documents with and without biometric identification, witness testimonies, or ultimately (but exceptionally) identity can be proven solely on the basis of a personal statement.
This approach is also applied to procedures for determining statelessness, but there is no guidance or case law establishing how statelessness might affect which evidence people can reasonably be expected to provide.
How Statefree's Case Assistant can help plug some current gaps
To help address some of these challenges, Statefree is developing the Case Assistant, a digital tool to help individuals structure and submit evidence of statelessness from the outset, while also supporting authorities to make more consistent and well-substantiated decisions. By standardising the collection and assessment of evidence, the tool can improve efficiency, transparency and traceability, reduce duplicate assessments, and lessen reliance on the expertise of individual caseworkers. The Case Assistant also includes an interactive step-by-step feature for administrative authorities to support the identification and determination of statelessness.
The Case Assistant could be particularly valuable in addressing current gaps in knowledge on statelessness and in providing country- and group-specific information. In turn, this may support more systematic recognition of groups that are widely deprived of nationality, such as the Rohingya, certain Nepalese minorities from Bhutan, Tibetans and Uyghurs from China, Kurdish minorities from Syria, and Palestinians.
Get in touch with Statefree if you are interested in following up on the development of the Statefree Case Assistant or if you are interested in joining our community.
The necessity of introducing a determination procedure
Alongside developing practical tools such as the Case Assistant, Statefree has also been actively engaged in advocacy and Parliamentary outreach to push for better identification and determination of statelessness in Germany. This has included contributing with expertise to legislative discussions, raising awareness of the barriers faced by stateless people, engaging with decision-makers on the need for a dedicated SDP, and highlighting gaps in current law and administrative practice.
By ratifying the UN Statelessness Conventions, Germany has committed to identifying statelessness, recognising the rights of stateless persons, and reducing cases of statelessness. Now it’s time to deliver these commitments.
Interested in learning more about SDPs in Europe?
Read our briefing on statelessness determination and protection.
Watch our webinar exploring what needs to happen next to improve the identification and protection of stateless people in Europe.
Visit our StatelessnessINDEX for analysis of law, policy and practice in 35 countries.
Look back at our other blogs from our SDP blog series.
