CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 16 novembre 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s927C7ADD { margin-top:24pt; margin-bottom:10pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s8FE8E970 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:10pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE4770B24 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border:0.75pt solid #000000; padding:1pt 4pt; font-size:10pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s59272B2C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s598389FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:13pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s223139AF { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sF43EBB0E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.85pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sAA38361A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sC278ABC0 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.51pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sC03030BA { margin-left:10.75pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .sE485344B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sC3C29E73 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase; list-style-position:inside } .sB706BD6C { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sDD998142 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sC6C7C49B { margin-left:7.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sD0682254 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s30C8A987 { width:4.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sB2ED4664 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s4E0353E8 { width:4.23pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sF7610474 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:36.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCC65813D { margin-left:6.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s28F2AD21 { margin-left:11.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s448F0C15 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7F175FE6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9D025815 { width:20.21pt; display:inline-block } .s8D17D8A5 { width:127.42pt; display:inline-block } .s5A65B3DC { width:46.56pt; display:inline-block } .s44B8752F { width:177.11pt; display:inline-block } FIFTH SECTION CASE OF G.T.B. v. SPAIN (Application no. 3041/19)   JUDGMENT   Art 8 • Positive obligations • Domestic authorities’ failure to comply with obligation to act with due diligence to assist vulnerable minor, a Spanish national born abroad, to obtain birth registration not secured by his available parent, and consequently identity documents • Right to respect for private life including, in principle, individual right to have one’s birth registered and to have access to other identity documents • Importance of “birth registration” for respect for children’s human rights • Important public interests at stake in process of birth registration justifying strict registration procedures, in particular, when birth took place outside concerned State’s territory • Wide margin of appreciation covering legal substantive and procedural requirements imposed on individual seeking to obtain birth certificate and, on its basis, other identity documents • Adaptability in standard procedures for delivery of identity documents might be required when circumstances made that imperative • Incumbent on authorities to act in child’s best interests to compensate for mother’s failings and prevent it from being left unregistered • Two-tier test developed: (i)   At what point in time could it be said authorities were sufficiently aware of particular situation and could have reasonably expected to take active measures? (ii)   Did authorities take sufficiently adequate and timely action to assist applicant? • Positive obligation to assist applicant arose when it became clear that his only available parent would not be able to produce other documents • Authorities’ failure to take sufficiently adequate and timely action in discharging their obligation to act with due diligence resulting in important repercussions for applicant   STRASBOURG 16 November 2023   FINAL   16/02/2024   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of G.T.B. v. Spain, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Georges Ravarani, President ,   Carlo Ranzoni,   Mārtiņš Mits,   María Elósegui,   Mattias Guyomar,   Kateřina Šimáčková,   Mykola Gnatovskyy, judges , and Victor Soloveytchik, Section Registrar , Having regard to: the application (no.   3041/19) against the Kingdom of Spain lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Spanish national, Mr   G.T.B. (“the applicant”), on 21 December 2018; the decision to give notice to the Spanish Government (“the Government”) of the complaints concerning Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention and Article   2 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible; the parties’ observations; the decision to grant the applicant anonymity of its own motion under Rule   47 § 4 of the Rules of Court; Having deliberated in private on 5 September and 17 October 2023, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the latter date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The case concerns the delay by the public authorities in processing the applicant’s mother’s request to register his birth, which was made several years after the applicant was born. Not having a birth certificate also prevented the applicant from having a national ID card, which he only obtained when he was 21 years old. The lack of identification documents had, in the applicant’s view, had an impact on his psychological well-being, which violated his right under Article 3; on his private and family life, which violated his right under Article 8 § 1 of the Convention; and on his right to education under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1, as he complained that he had not been able to enrol in school and obtain diplomas because of this. THE FACTS 2.     The applicant was born in 1985 and lives in Santa Cruz de Tenerife. He was represented by Mr J.C. Vázquez Fernández, a lawyer practising in Madrid. 3.     The Government were represented by Mr   L. Vacas Chalfoun, co-Agent of Spain to the European Court of Human Rights. 4.     The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. The applicant’s background and education 5.     The applicant was born on 15 August 1985 in Mexico, to a Spanish mother who had been born in Venezuela (“Ms X”). His birth was never registered with the Civil Registry in the Spanish consulate in Mexico. 6 .     Shortly after the applicant was born, an earthquake caused significant damage in Mexico. In October 1985 Ms X applied to be repatriated from Mexico with her sons (her elder son, then three years old, and the applicant, who was then two months old), at the expense of the Relief and Repatriation Fund of the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The children were included in their mother’s passport. The family took up residence in San Cristóbal de la Laguna, Tenerife (Spain). 7.     Ever since their repatriation, the applicant and his family have resided in Tenerife. Upon his arrival there, the applicant was not registered as having been born in Mexico. 8.     From 29 December 1989 until 15 January 1991 the applicant and his older brother lived in a children’s foster centre under the care of the public authorities after they had been voluntarily given up by Ms X, who claimed to be ill, to have insufficient economic means and to be unable to take care of them. They were released on 15 January 1991 after their mother had stated that she wanted to take them back to live with her. There was no judicial intervention in respect of that decision. 9.     The applicant started using illicit substances (hashish) in 1992, at the age of seven. 10.     According to the applicant, he was enrolled in a primary school (“school A”) from 22   October 1993 to November 1993. He submitted to the Court a certificate issued by that primary school, according to which he had been enrolled on those dates, but he was unable to provide any academic report confirming that he had ever attended the school. He claimed that his mother had tried to enrol him in another primary school, but had been unable to do so owing to the lack of requisite documents. 11 .     In 1994, when the applicant was nine years old, he was enrolled in and began attending another public school (“school B”) in Tenerife. According to his school reports, he did not know how to read or write at that age. 12.     In March 1995 the applicant was transferred to another public school (“school C”), also in Tenerife. During the 1995/96 academic year he was enrolled in the fourth grade of primary school. In the 1996/97 academic year, the applicant was enrolled in the fifth grade of primary school. He was also enrolled for three hours a week in a public supplementary education programme, in order to receive remedial teaching to compensate for his lack of previous academic education. A report from that year stated as follows: “Taking into account his numerous absences and the little interest shown, no progress has been observed in his attitude towards school, either in his behaviour or as regards the curricular content.” 13 .     The applicant started manifesting psychological disorders in 1996, at the age of 11. 14.     In the 1997/98 academic year, the applicant was transferred back to school   B, where he was enrolled in the sixth grade of primary school. His individualised assessment report of November 1997 contained the following observation: “[C]ontinuous absences from class make it impossible to follow a rhythm of work with the student. [He shows] little interest in his work, which may be due to the [developmental] delay he suffers from. He receives remedial teaching three hours a week, with better performance than in the classroom.” The applicant did not finish his studies that year. The school issued a report according to which the applicant and his sister did not have identity documents, had missed classes frequently without justification, and had often arrived at school poorly dressed, without any attention having been paid to their personal hygiene, and without having had breakfast; in addition, Ms   X had caused problematic situations with the teachers at both school   B and   school C, as well as with representatives of the social security authorities and of a non-governmental organisation. 15 .     In the 1998/99 academic year, the applicant was enrolled in the first grade of secondary education. He did not attend classes during the entire year, but he was enrolled in the second grade for the 1999/2000 academic year. 16.     In 1998, at the age of 13, according to the applicant, he began indiscriminate consumption of toxic substances. In 1999, at the age of 14, he participated in robberies and started using cocaine. The applicant’s juvenile record 17 .     From December 2001 (when the applicant was 16 years old), several correctional measures were imposed on him by the Santa Cruz de Tenerife Juvenile Court (“the Juvenile Court”). 18 .     On 22 January 2002 the measure of attending a day centre for one year was imposed on the applicant. According to the documents submitted by the applicant, the workers of the day centre offered to help Ms X in the proceedings aimed at registering the applicant’s birth and at obtaining an ID card for him, but she refused. By a judgment of 5 July 2002, following a plea bargain with his lawyer, the applicant was sentenced to detention in a semi-open regime for ten months. In November 2002 he escaped from the detention centre and was sentenced to six months in a semi-open regime in a judgment of 10 June 2003. On 31 May 2003, while he was still serving the sentence imposed by the judgment of 5 July 2002, he pretended to suffer an epileptic fit and, taking advantage of being transferred to hospital, pushed past a nurse and fled; he was arrested on 1   June 2003 after breaking into two cars. On 15   June 2004 (by which time the applicant was already an adult) he was convicted and sentenced to detention in a semi-open regime for six months. In April 2003 he resisted the execution of an interim measure, causing injuries to the officers who were escorting him, and was sentenced on 14   September 2005 to six months on probation. On 29 September 2003 he was sentenced to nine months of semi-open detention for a further offence. The applicant completed a measure of detention in a closed regime for eight months between 2 June 2003 and 27 January 2004. From 27 January 2004 to 26   May 2004 he served another measure of semi-open detention in a centre where he took part in several activities: academic courses, sports, social activities and professional training. From 21 January 2005 he served a further measure of seven months on probation. During that time he took part in courses in emergencies and catastrophes, water lifeguard training and land rescue, in all of which he obtained certificates. The investigation by the Minors Service 19 .     Owing to the applicant’s lack of attendance, the school issued a notice to the Prevention and Protection Programme of the Minors Service of the Government of the Canary Islands. 20 .     The Minors Service initiated an inquiry on 18 February 2002. The inquiry established that the applicant had not been attending school and had not undergone medical check-ups. The Minors Service noted in a report of 26   June 2021 that, according to its records, Ms X had not allowed any professionals to have access to her children, that they had received numerous appointment letters and summonses but had not responded, and that both the Minors Service and the police had repeatedly tried to locate them at their home but, even though they had been known to be inside, they had deliberately ignored calls, knocks at the door and letters slipped under the door. Because the applicant was already serving a supervisory measure, no protection order was made for him to be taken into care. The investigation was terminated when the applicant reached the age of 18 in 2003. The applicant’s educational and medical situation and placement in detention centres 21.     Between 2001 and 2006, while serving correctional measures, the applicant completed training in marquetry, food handling and dog training. According to the applicant, he could not continue his professional training on account of his lack of an ID card. According to the psychological and follow-up reports from the correctional centres he stayed in, he had started other courses that he had not finished, and the centres had repeatedly offered to help Ms   X obtain his ID, but she had refused and had shown no interest in the matter. 22.     In March 2000 the social authorities requested Ms X to provide the ID numbers of her children who had reached the age of 16 to ensure that she remained entitled to receive social benefits. Ms   X was informed that without such information she would no longer be eligible for benefits. The applicant and his brother did not hold an ID card at that time. 23.     A certificate from the Canary Islands education authorities of 26   June 2002 stated that the applicant had been pre-enrolled in an educational programme but he had never been able to formalise the enrolment, because he did not have an ID card or any other form of identification. 24.     In September 2002 the applicant signed up for the tests to obtain the School Leaving Certificate, held at an adult education centre. In the certificate issued by that centre, the marks obtained in all subjects are recorded as “NA” (not attended): the applicant did not take the tests. 25 .     In 2003 the applicant turned 18. Until that time, his mother had been his legal representative. During the time he was detained, several reports indicated that his psychologists had encouraged him to focus on obtaining his ID by himself (from the moment he turned 18) and to obtain help from the public authorities, in the light of his mother’s inaction in that regard. Some reports also referred to Ms X’s difficult and problematic attitude, which had prevented proper dialogue with her son and with the various detention centres. Some reports noted in addition that it was impossible for him to integrate into the labour market without first obtaining an ID card. They pointed out that he could not register in public job-search programmes, because he did not have an ID number, and that some job offers could not materialise in the form of contracts precisely because of that situation. Occasionally he took some jobs, in particular in building maintenance and construction. 26.     On 5 February 2008 a foundation responsible for the training and vocational integration of minors within the criminal justice system in the Canary Islands issued a certificate stating that the applicant had been supervised by technicians of that foundation between 26   May 2004 and 17   April 2006, during which time he had not had an ID card, which had prevented him from attending official training courses and from integrating into the job market. The applicant had also had issues when trying to enrol in a gym although he had eventually succeeded. 27 .     According to numerous psychological and follow-up reports issued between 2001 and 2006, the applicant was constantly frustrated and anxious because of his lack of identifying documents and its effect on his prospects of having a stable job. 28 .     According to several medical reports, the applicant was diagnosed in 2002 with various conditions, including paranoid schizophrenia, and suffered from anxiety caused by the lack of an ID card and the ensuing inability to undergo training or to be employed, which aggravated his mental condition. 29.     In July 2011 the applicant was granted a disability pension of a non-contributory nature owing to his severe psychiatric and psychological disorders, including paranoid schizophrenia and chronic post-traumatic stress disorder. 30 .     According to a forensic medical report requested during the judicial proceedings and dated 4 November 2016, the applicant had post-traumatic stress disorder and continued to be under psychiatric supervision, but this did not prevent him from appearing before a court and making a judicial statement. The applicant’s mother’s requests for him to obtain a birth certificate From 1997 to 1998 31 .     On 3 September 1997, when the applicant was 12 years old, his mother appeared at the La Laguna Civil Registry and requested late registration of the birth of her two sons, including the applicant. Ms   X included their address in the application. 32 .     In the course of the proceedings, the applicant’s mother was asked to appear with two witnesses in order to be able to register her sons, first by a summons sent on 9 September 1997 and, following the absence of a response, by a second summons sent in January 1998. The two witnesses were heard on 25 and 27   August 1998 and confirmed the mother-son relationship between the applicant and his brother and Ms X. 33 .     On 10 September 1998 the judge at the La Laguna Civil Registry considered that no further documents or evidence were needed and asked the public prosecutor’s office, which deals with matters concerning minors, to report on whether the late registration was justified. On the same date the public prosecutor’s office issued a report, according to which it had been sufficiently proved that the applicant and his brother were sons of Ms   X as she had claimed, and their birth could therefore be registered. The judge at the La Laguna Civil Registry immediately decided, on the very same day, that the birth of the applicant and his brother could be registered. From 1998 to 2002 34.     On 16 December 1998 the Central Civil Registry, the body competent to register births of Spanish nationals outside Spanish territory, asked Ms   X to submit her own birth certificate as well as those proving the birth of her children in Mexico before it could proceed with the birth registration. 35.     On 3 March 1999 Ms X presented her birth certificate and her passport but claimed that she lacked any official documents to prove the birth of her children, as they had been born at home in Mexico. 36 .     On 31   March 1999 the Central Civil Registry issued a request to the Tenerife Civil Registry to summon Ms X and her children for the purpose of “recognition” of the minor children by their mother, and to initiate proceedings to grant Spanish nationality to the applicant’s elder brother. The Central Civil Registry instructed the Tenerife Civil Registry to publish the corresponding decrees and to have Ms X, the applicant and his brother examined by a forensic doctor. Lastly, it requested a report from the public prosecutor’s office on the possibility of proceeding with the registration of their birth. 37 .     The request could not be executed because it proved impossible to summon Ms X, who could not be found and notified at the address she had indicated for those purposes in her application. 38.     The procedure was suspended for several years. 39.     On 26 December 2001 the police issued a report stating that an ID card in respect of the applicant’s brother could not be issued pending the submission of outstanding documents. From 2002 to 2006 40 .     On 16 May 2002 Ms X appeared at the La Laguna Civil Registry and requested the late registration of the birth of her children, stating that she had not provided the requested certificates because in her opinion the children should have been registered at the Spanish embassy when they had been repatriated, that the documents must have been destroyed by the earthquake in Mexico, and that she only had documents concerning herself but that the children had been included in her passport in order to proceed with the repatriation in 1985. 41 .     On 5   August 2002 the Central Civil Registry instituted a new procedure for the late registration of the births of the applicant and his brother. Ms X was asked to present the Mexican birth certificates for her sons, which she was instructed to request from the Consular Affairs Directorate of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 42 .     On 23 October 2002 Ms X appeared at the La Laguna Civil Registry and stated that she did not have any birth certificates and that the children had not been registered in their country of birth, Mexico, as she had already explained on 16 May 2002. 43.     On 5 February 2003 the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Spain informed Ms X that she needed to indicate at least the municipality in which and the date on which her sons had been born in Mexico so that it could ask the Spanish consulate in Mexico to search for their birth certificates in that country. 44 .     On 15 January 2004 the La Laguna Civil Registry requested the Consular Affairs Directorate of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to search for the birth certificates of the applicant and his brother in Mexico. The request was transferred to the consul general of Spain in Mexico on 6   February 2004. 45.     On 13 May 2004 the consul general of Spain in Mexico replied that in the absence of further information about when the applicant and his brother had been initially registered in Mexico and further specific information about that registration, it had not been possible to find any documents. 46.     On 21 October 2004 the judge at the Central Civil Registry requested Ms   X to provide the birth certificates and all documentation available to her relating to her children (for example, medical or school-related documents) to prove their mother-son relationship. 47 .     On 11 January 2005 Ms X and her sons appeared at the La Laguna Civil Registry. She requested the urgent processing of the registration of her children’s birth, alleging again that she had been unable to provide birth certificates since the documents relating to the births had been destroyed by the earthquake which had devastated Mexico and had led to their being repatriated on 20 October 1985. She explained that she had already submitted: (i)     her own birth certificate; (ii)     her passport, in which her children were included; (iii)     a certificate of residence issued by the municipality; (iv)     her social security card, on which the children were included; (v)     a copy of the administrative file on the request for their birth registration; and (vi)     several requests to the Central Civil Registry for registration of her sons. The La Laguna Civil Registry referred the request to the Central Civil Registry, which then forwarded it to the public prosecutor’s office, which on 26   January 2005 objected to the above-mentioned registrations as the details of the births had not been proved. 48.     As a result, in order to complete the evidence in the file, the Central Civil Registry agreed that the mother’s express recognition of the children should be given before a judge. 49.     The applicant appeared at the public prosecutor’s office and the La Laguna Civil Registry in February and April 2005 to enquire about the procedure for him to be able to obtain a birth certificate. The public prosecutor’s office sent two requests to the Central Civil Registry, in April and September 2005, to obtain information about the reasons for the delay. 50 .     On 13 May 2005, following the request from the Central Civil Registry, Ms   X recognised her children at a hearing before a judge, and repeated that she did not have further documents. The applicant’s sister also attested to their relationship. The applicant and his brother consented to their recognition by their mother and their birth registration. They were all examined by a forensic doctor, who ratified their biological age, and decrees were published to make the recognition official. 51.     On 6 June 2005 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Central Civil Registry about the delay in the procedure to register his birth. He lodged a further complaint with the Santa Cruz de Tenerife public prosecutor’s office in September 2005. The public prosecutor’s office sent various requests for information about the proceedings to the Central Civil Registry. 52.     On 28 October 2005 the Central Civil Registry asked Ms X to submit certificates of the studies pursued by her sons. She replied that although her sons had been enrolled in various schools and high schools, she had not been able to obtain any certificates because of their lack of an ID number. In view of the statement by Ms X that she was unable to submit any additional documents, on 8 March 2006 the public prosecutor issued a report in favour of the late registration of the applicant’s and his brother’s respective births. 53.     On 13 March 2006 the judge at the Central Civil Registry gave a decision in which – in the light of the documents submitted, as well as the report by the forensic doctor, the witnesses’ statements, and the recognition given by the applicant’s mother and sister – the relationship between the applicant and Ms X was considered to have been proved. As a consequence, the judge approved the late registration of the birth of the applicant and his older brother. 54 .     On 5 April 2006 the births were registered. 55.     Following the birth registration, on 24 May 2006 the applicant, then 21 years old, was issued with an ID card. Administrative proceedings for State liability 56.     On 22 December 2014 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Ministry of the Interior of Spain, which he described as a “claim prior to bringing administrative proceedings”. He sought compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, which he did not quantify. The complaint did not meet the formal legal requirements. 57.     On 20 April 2015 the applicant submitted an amended complaint claiming compensation for damage caused by the undue delay in issuing his ID card. The applicant argued that his lack of an ID card for many years had prevented him from accessing the job market, obtaining a driving licence, or completing his education. He quantified his claim for compensation at 825,546.70   euros (EUR), which he later increased to EUR   930,081.36. The amount was broken down into “days during which he could not work”, “job-related pecuniary damage (before and after obtaining the ID card)”, “after-effects”, and an additional 10% as a “corrective factor”. Although he mentioned the lack of access to education, he did not quantify the amount claimed under that head. The complaint made no reference to a breach by the competent authorities of their duties relating to the care of minors. 58.     The Council of State ( Consejo de Estado ) was consulted for a mandatory report on the complaint lodged. In its report of 23 July 2015, the Council of State observed that the complaint resulted from the alleged malfunctioning of public services belonging not only to the Ministry of the Interior but also to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation and the Ministry of Justice. Accordingly, the decision on potential State liability needed to be taken by the Ministry of the Presidency. 59.     On 24 November 2015 the Ministry of the Presidency asked the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation to submit observations on whether they considered themselves competent to respond to the State liability claim and, if appropriate, to submit their decision. In response, the Ministry of Justice submitted a draft decision dismissing the complaint on account of the lack of a causal link between the delay in issuing an ID card and the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated that it was not competent, because its only intervention had been the repatriation from Mexico when the applicant had been two months old and the request to the consul general in Mexico to search for any birth certificates there, which in its view had been merely procedural steps without any impact on the applicant’s State liability complaint. 60.     The applicant received the observations of the ministries but he did not submit any observations himself. 61.     On 29 December 2015 the Ministry of Justice requested the judge at the Central Civil Registry to provide the relevant information to decide on the applicant’s State liability complaint. On 8 January 2016 the judge provided information about the steps that the applicant and his mother had taken in order to obtain his late birth registration and then an ID card, and concluded that, in the light of the facts, the delays in obtaining the documents in question had been justified. The judge also noted that consideration should be given to the possibility of the State liability claim against the public authorities being time-barred, since the limitation period of one year started from the point at which he could have lodged the complaint. In the opinion of the judge, the period had started running on 9 April 2013, when the applicant had been sent a full copy of the file on the proceedings at his own request. The complaint had been lodged on 20 April 2015. 62.     In opinion no. 529/2016 of 7 July 2016, the Council of State found that it was appropriate to reject the State liability claim brought by the applicant in respect of the damage allegedly suffered as a consequence of the delay in obtaining the ID card, for two main reasons: (i) the applicant was affected by a psychiatric disorder which could not be causally linked to the acts or omissions of the public authorities; and (ii) the delay in obtaining the ID card had been a consequence of the impossibility of registering the birth at the Central Civil Registry, which was a prior and necessary procedure. In the Council of State’s view, although there had been some delays in some of the procedures for registering the applicant’s birth with the Central Civil Registry, the fact was that all the procedures that had been initiated since 1997 could not be processed at some point because of Ms X’s inactivity, or the absence of documents that should have been in her possession, or the impossibility of finding her at the address she had indicated for that purpose. In the Council of State’s view, the delays caused by such circumstances could not be attributed to the public authorities. The Council of State emphasised that the procedure for late birth registration had been initiated for the last time in May 2002. After the failure of the Spanish Consular Registry in Mexico to find any birth certificates and the applicant’s mother’s acknowledgment that she had never registered him there, the procedure had been resolved by means of a certificate of recognition of the children by Ms X, after which their birth registration had finally been approved on 13 March 2006 and the registration had been carried out on 5 April 2006. In short, the delay could not be attributable to the Ministry of Justice, since the delays in conducting the procedure were the result of actions or omissions by Ms X or the impossibility of providing documentation the loss or lack of which was not attributable to the public authorities. 63.     On 20 July 2016 the Ministry of the Presidency, in accordance with the proposal of the Ministries of the Interior and Justice and with the opinion issued by the Council of State, decided to reject the applicant’s claim for State liability. The decision stated, in particular, the following: “[D]espite all the references contained in the medical reports on the effects that the failure to obtain an ID card has had on the applicant’s mental health, it should be pointed out that no objection can be made to the only action of the Ministry of the Interior identified in the complaint, which was to issue an ID card to the interested party, given that this was carried out without any delay and in compliance with the requisite standards once the interested party met the requirements for obtaining the card and had proved this. The fact that it was impossible for [the applicant] to obtain the ID card was simply the inevitable consequence of not being in possession of the necessary birth certificate as he had not been registered at birth, and therefore no liability can be attributed to the services of the Ministry of the Interior as the damage alleged by the applicant is not causally linked to the actions of those services. ... The applicant claims that the lack of documentation proving his identity is the cause of the very serious illness from which he suffers, arguing that this has had repercussions on his physical and mental health since, lacking a national ID card and family record book, he was unable to attend school properly and could not access the level of education corresponding to his age, which led to his social isolation and was, in turn, the cause of various criminal behaviours, making it impossible for him to achieve a stable life. However, although he did not provide the report which allegedly diagnosed him with paranoid schizophrenia, according to the forensic medical report of 23   May 2014, the applicant’s pathological history includes behavioural disorders since the age of 11 and cannabinoid use in adolescence and, according to the report of 29   November 2014 of the General Psychiatry Service of the University Hospital of the Canary Islands in La Laguna, a maternal uncle suffering from paranoid schizophrenia as part of the family psychiatric history. It is clear from the foregoing that it cannot be concluded that the lack of documentation certifying his identity is the cause of the applicant’s neuronal pathology, which apparently affects him, and therefore it is not possible to establish State liability as claimed.” Judicial proceedings for State liability 64.     On 27 January 2016 the applicant brought judicial administrative proceedings, appealing against the implied rejection of his claim for State liability. His appeal was subsequently extended to cover the express rejection in accordance with the above-mentioned decision of 7 July 2016. On 6   September 2016 the applicant increased the amount claimed to EUR   1,288,088.41, which included damage to his professional life in 2015 and 2016, as well as “damage caused by the non-compliance of the public authorities with their guardianship duties” (the latter amounted to EUR   358,051.60, without any further detail given as to how he had calculated it). 65.     On 22 May 2017 the Audiencia Nacional declared the applicant’s appeal inadmissible in a judgment that noted the conditions that had to be met in order for a claim for State liability to be successful in accordance with the regulations in force: (i)   real, economically quantifiable and individualised damage had to have been sustained by a person who had no legal duty to bear it; (ii)   the damage had to be the result of the normal or abnormal operation of public services, and not caused by force majeure ; (iii)   there had to be a causal link between the functioning of the public service concerned and the damage or injury – it therefore had to be determined whether there was a causal link between the functioning of the public service and the damage or injury alleged, that is, whether it was attributable to the public authorities; and (iv)   a period of one year had not elapsed between the occurrence of the damage and the time when the action for damages had been brought. 66.     Next, the Audiencia Nacional assessed whether the burden of proving economically quantifiable and individualised damage had been met by the applicant. It found that this had not been duly proved, on the basis that the applicant had merely quantified the damage he had allegedly suffered (for the time spent without an ID card, his mental illnesses, the education certificates he had been unable to obtain, or the jobs he had been unable to find) but had not provided any explanation as to how he had come up with that amount. The Audiencia National considered that the applicant was confusing pecuniary damage (allegedly caused by his losing or being unable to start certain jobs) and non-pecuniary damage (based on his suffering) but had not explained any of the amounts he had claimed. 67.     Moreover, it observed that in his initial administrative complaint the applicant had not raised any allegations of non-compliance by the public authorities with their duties of protection while he had been under their watch (while serving the criminal measures imposed on him), and that he therefore could not make any claims on that issue in the present context (in his judicial complaint). 68.     The Audiencia Nacional concluded that a causal link could not be established between the actions and omissions of the public authorities and the alleged damage suffered by the applicant. Moreover, it considered that Ms   X had been negligent in registering the birth of her children. The Audiencia Nacional stated as follows: “... In the present case, it cannot be said that it is possible to speak of the existence or non-existence of a clear and clean causal relationship between the activity of the public authorities and the result known to have been produced, but rather that, as we shall see, there is a multitude of concurrent circumstances, some voluntary, others forced by reality, others beyond the full control of those intervening in this event, and in the background there is a set of negative circumstances which in one way or another have influenced the final result. In the present case, the actions of the public authorities, in terms of their obligation to comply with their duty to protect minors, have been somewhat less than impressive, not to say non-existent, as it is a minor who was fully under their protection and in respect of whom there was a specific problem, namely the lack of legal identification, owing to the failure to register his birth with a Spanish civil registry. ... [I]n the absence of proof of the decisive influence in the development of the illness suffered by [the applicant], given his childhood and family history and the congenital origin of the illness from which he suffers, the lack of activity on the part of the mother, who bore primary responsibility for ensuring the late registration of the birth of her children but who took more than twelve years to initiate the procedure, and the failure to follow up the procedure initiated for that purpose, mean that the sole direct causal link between the possible harm suffered by [the applicant] and any potential lack of diligence on the part of the public authorities is broken, leading to the conclusion that any harm that may have been caused is not considered to be unlawful and therefore, it is not appropriate to declare the State liable.” 69.     On 26 June 2017 the applicant’s lawyer lodged an appeal on points of law ( recurso de casación ) against the above-mentioned judgment given by the Audiencia Nacional . He complained of a breach of the public authorities’ duties to take care of a minor under their guardianship, and of his right to fair proceedings because of the incorrect assessment of the evidence. On 10   November 2017 the Supreme Court declared the appeal inadmissible based on its being unsubstantiated: the Supreme Court considered that the applicant had not sufficiently justified the existence of an objective interest for the purposes of an appeal on points of law ( interés casacional objetivo ) as required under domestic law. 70.     The applicant lodged an amparo appeal with the Constitutional Court, complaining of a violation of his right not to be discriminated against taken together with his right to education, of his right to physical and psychological integrity, and of his right to fair proceedings. The appeal was declared inadmissible on 21 June 2018 on the basis of its lack of constitutional relevance, which is required for the Constitutional Court to declare amparo appeals admissible. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE Relevant domestic law 71.     The relevant provisions of the Spanish Constitution of 1978 read as follows: Article 15 “Everyone shall have the right to life and to physical and psychological integrity, and under no circumstances may anyone be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment. The death penalty is hereby abolished, except as provided by military criminal law in times of war.” Article 18 § 1 “The right to honour, to personal and family privacy and to one’s own image is guaranteed.” Article 27 “1.     Everyone has the right to education. Freedom of teaching is recognised. 2.     Education shall be aimed at the full development of the human character with due respect for the democratic principles of coexistence and for fundamental rights and freedoms. ... 4.     Elementary education shall be compulsory and free of charge.” 72 .     The relevant provisions of the Spanish Law on the Civil Registry of 8   June 1957, as in force at the material time, read as follows: Section 2 “The Civil Registry shall constitute proof of the registered facts. Only in cases of lack of registration or where it is not possible to certify the entry shall other means of proof be accepted; but in the former situation, it shall be an essential requirement for their acceptance that, previously or simultaneously, the registration that has been omitted or the reconstitution of the entry has been requested.” Section 15 “The Registry shall record the events subject to registration that concern Spaniards and those that occur in Spanish territory, even if they concern foreigners. In any case, events that occurred outside Spain shall be registered where the corresponding registrations are to serve as a basis for registrations required by Spanish law.” Section 24 “The following shall be obliged to initiate registration without delay: First: t