9. has asserted that a child is part of the family unit from the moment of birth and by the very fact of it, which creates a bond amounting to “family life” between the child and the parent(s) leading to “a positive obligation on the part of the competent authorities to allow complete legal family ties to be formed […] as expeditiously as possible”. 25 The recognition of a parent-child relationship is also essential for a child’s sense of legal certainty about their identity in society and for the possibility of living and developing in a stable environment. 26 As a result, the Court has noted that the legal-parent child relationship is an essential aspect of the identity of individuals and is included within the right to private life of both the parent and the child.27 Given the significant impact of the lack of birth registration on the exercise of other fundamental rights, the intervenors submit that any legal provisions or measures which unduly prevent a child from being registered as soon as possible after birth may have disproportionate impact on the enjoyment of their right to respect for private and family life, thus amounting to a violation of Article 8. The denial of birth registration and its effect on nationality 10. The lack of a birth certificate can leave individuals particularly vulnerable to statelessness, The intervenors invite the Court to recall its recognition in Hoti v Croatia of the adverse impacts of statelessness on an individual’s daily life and the exercise of rights recognised by the ECHR.28 In Hashemi and Others v. Azerbaijan, this Court recognised that official documents attesting to a nationality are indispensable for the effective exercise of many of the rights that nationals alone can claim.29 The Court found that the refusal to provide access to an identity card to the applicants, and therefore recognise their nationality, was an unjustifiable interference with their right to respect for private life.30 11. Without birth registration, individuals may not be able to prove their legal identity, parental links, or place of birth, which affects both jus sanguinis and jus soli systems of conferring nationality. The Court has found that the refusal to issue identity cards is comparable to a refusal to recognise an individual’s nationality.31 12. While the right to a particular nationality is not explicitly guaranteed by the Convention or its Protocols, the Court has indicated on several occasions that “nationality is an element of a person’s identity” and falls within the scope of Article 8. 32 Access to a nationality is often necessary to grant legal status to an individual, enabling them to exercise their rights, participate fully in society, and enjoy the benefits of belonging to a community. The Court has also considered access to a nationality particularly important for the personal and social identity of children, noting in Mennesson v. France that children’s uncertainty concerning the recognition of a certain nationality is “worrying” and “is liable to have negative repercussions on the definition of their personal identity”. 33 13. The intervenors submit that the failure to facilitate birth registration impacts individuals’ ability to confirm their nationality with significant consequences for their private and family life. If an individual is unable to confirm their nationality, this can Kroon and others v. The Netherlands, no. 18535/91, 27 October 1994, §§ 30, 36. D.B. and Others v. Switzerland, nos. 58817/15 and 58252/15, 22 November 2022, § 87. 27 S.-H v Poland, nos. 56846/15 and 56849/15, 16 November 2022, § 64. 28 Hoti v. Croatia (n 11), § 126; Sudita Keita v. Hungary (n 19), § 34. 29 Hashemi and Others (n 21), § 49; Ahmadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 32538/10, 30 January 2020. 30 Hashemi and Others (n 21), § 48. 31 ibid, § 46; Ahmadov v. Azerbaijan (n 29), § 45. 32 Mennesson v. France (n 22), § 97; Zeggai v France, no. 12456/19, 13 October 2022, § 28; Ghoumid and Others v. France, no. 52273/16, 16 November 2020, § 43; Genovese v. Malta, no. 53124/09, 11 October 2011, § 33. 33 Mennesson v. France (n 22), § 97; Labassee v. France, no. 65941/11, 26 June 2014, § 76. 25 26 3