What factor did the Court in Paripovic emphasize when determining last habitual residence?

The focus on the length of stay in the country as emphasized by the Court in Paripovic is pivotal when determining last habitual residence. This factor is significant because it addresses the continuity and stability of an individual's connections to a country. The length of stay provides insight into whether an individual has established a presence that reflects their habitual residence, which is not merely based on physical presence but also on deeper social, economic, and familial ties that develop over time.

When assessing someone's last habitual residence, courts aim to establish where an individual has predominantly lived and built their life, which is often demonstrated through the duration of their stay. This approach recognizes that a longer duration in a particular location generally indicates a stronger link to that place, impacting the determination of refugee status or eligibility for asylum. Factors like the size of the country, language spoken, and economic stability, while relevant in certain contexts, do not carry the same weight in establishing habitual residence as the duration of stay does.