Tag: Palestine

Supreme Court, K.E. and G.E. v Prosecutor

On By In Supreme Court
Supreme Court, K.E. and G.E. v Prosecutor, Nr. C.21.0095.F, 19 November 2021

The Belgian Supreme Court examines a judgement concerning the existence of Palestine as a State. The Court recalls that the 1933 Montevideo Convention is to be considered as codified customary international law and therefore applicable in the Belgian legal system. The first article of the Convention prescribes four criteria which States should fulfil in order to exist, regardless of any recognition by third States. Consequently, Belgian courts have the authority to apply and interpret this article without this interpretation becoming neither a general and legal rule nor any kind of recognition by the Belgian State. Hence, the Court adjudges that the understanding of article 1 applied to the State of Palestine in the underlying judgement was legally constituted and therefore dismisses the appeal in cassation as unfounded.

Download

X and X v Prosecutor

On By In Supreme Court
Supreme Court, X and X v Prosecutor, Nr. C.20.0482.N, 26 February 2021

In this case, two applicants instituted an appeal in cassation against a judgement of the Ghent Court of Appeal of 28 March 2019 denying their request for recognition as stateless persons. According to the Court of Appeal the applicants could not be regarded as stateless persons because they were considered as Palestinian nationals by the State of Palestine in accordance with applicable law. As the Palestinian law referred to was not specified in the judgment itself, the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment because of an inadequate statement of reasons.

Download
AGENTSCHAP INTEGRATIE & INBURGERING, “HvC verbreekt arrest dat naar Palestijnse nationaliteitswetteving verwijst”, 2021, www.agii.be/nieuws/hvc-verbreekt-arrest-dat-naar-palestijnse-nationaliteitswetgeving-verwijst.

X {Ex parte}

On By In First Instance Tribunal
Liège First Instance Tribunal, X, Nr. 20/770/B, 5 February 2021

The Tribunal assessed wether a man of Palestinian origin, as well as his underage children, could be recognized as stateless persons. According to the Tribunal, the inconsistent Belgian case-law on the question whether Palestine qualified as a State rendered it necessary to refer to the position of the organ constitutionally competent in the matter, i.e., the Belgian federal government. In light of the government’s refusal to recognize Palestine as a State, any attempt at indirect recognition of Palestinian statehood by the judiciary was in vain. The Tribunal accordingly confirmed the applicants should be regarded as being stateless in the sense of the 1954 New York Convention.

Download

A.N.H. {Ex parte}

On By In Supreme Court
Supreme Court, A.N.H., Nr. C.18.0400.N, 18 February 2019

The Court holds that a ‘State’ can be said to exist when the criteria laid down in the 1933 Montevideo Convention are fulfilled, and that the creation of a State is, in principle, not contingent on its recognition by other States. In light hereof, the Ghent Court of Appeal did not err in regarding the claimant as a Palestinian national, rather than a Stateless person. In particular, the Supreme Court rejects the claimant’s argument that Palestine could not be qualified as a State due to a lack of recognition by the international community.

Download

Prosecutor v X

On By In Court of Appeal
Brussels Court of Appeal, X v Prosecutor, Nr. 2017/FA/707, 5 June 2018

The Brussels Court of Appeal states that according to article 1.1° of the 1954 Statelessness Convention, a person who is not considered a national by any State constitutes a stateless person. In assessing the statehood of Palestine, the Court takes into account the four criteria established in the 1933 Montevideo Convention and holds that, in accordance with the declaratory theory, the political existence of a State is not contingent on its recognition by other States. The Court determines that, based on these elements, Palestine must be considered as a ‘State’ hic et nunc.

According to the Court, the alleged absence of a Palestinian nationality legislation does not imply that the defendant ought to be regarded as a stateless person. Instead, what matters is that the State of Palestine considers the defendant as a Palestinian citizen by virtue of applicable national law. In particular, the defendant’s UNRWA Registration Card indicates Palestinian descent, whereas individuals of Palestinian origin and their descendents who sought refuge in Lebanon following the establishment of the State of Israel are recognized as nationals by the Palestinian National Authorities. It follows that the defendant is not a stateless person in the sense of the 1954 Convention.

Download