CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 juillet 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 10 July 2017   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 42321/15 Michael SUDITA KEITA against Hungary lodged on 25 August 2015 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the difficulties of the applicant, a stateless person of Somali origin, in regularising his legal situation in Hungary. The applicant has been residing in Hungary since 2002. His applications for international protection or recognition as stateless were repeatedly rejected. In respect of the stateless status, the main reason behind the rejection was that Hungarian law required “lawful entry” to the country as a precondition. In February 2015 the Constitutional Court found that condition to be in conflict with the relevant international treaties; however, the decision, having only pro futuro effect, did not affect the applicant’s already pending case. In October 2015 the Budapest Administrative and Labour Court recognised the applicant as stateless, that judgment was not however a final one. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private and family life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, on account of his inability to have his personal status regularised for more than a decade, and of his difficulties arising from that situation, in particular his arguable inability to engage in any gainful activity, obtain health care or conclude a marriage? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article   8   §   2 (see, mutatis mutandis , B.A.C. v. Greece , no. 11981/15, 13   October 2016)?