The possibility of introducing an asylum claim is a conditio sine qua non for the effective protection of persons in need of international protection. If authorities do not guarantee unhindered access to the asylum procedure, asylum-seekers can not make use of the procedural rights foreseen within the asylum procedure and are at risk of being arrested at any time. Hence even if the asylum procedure offers effective safeguards, these are of no use if, as in the present case, the asylum claim is not registered for a long period of time. [85] violation of article 13 (effective remedy) in combination with article 3 ECHR.
The court annulled article 1 of the Law of 15 december 1980 on aliens on the grounds that, the absence of an derogatory regime to the benefit of stateless persons for the fee due in the residence regularisation procedure, constitutes an unjustified difference of treatment between refugees and stateless persons. The absence of an automatic right of residence implies that, de facto, stateless persons have to pay this fee whilst refugees do not.