status is not justified, and may effectively hinder the right to a birth registration. Direct discrimination on the ground of documentation status 28. Discrimination can be direct when a difference in treatment of persons in analogous or relevantly similar situations is based on an identifiable characteristic or status protected by Article 14.54 The Court has held that the words ‘other status’ in Article 14 “have generally been given a wide meaning in its case law and their interpretation has not been limited to characteristics which are personal in the sense that they are innate or inherent”.55 29. States enjoy a certain margin of appreciation in assessing whether differences in treatment are justified. However, the scope of that margin varies according to the circumstances, the subject-matter, and the background of the case.56 The Court has identified certain grounds of discrimination where States’ margin of appreciation is reduced.57 Contracting States’ international and regional human rights obligations mandate the right to immediate birth registration for all regardless of the documentation status of the child or their parents (see paras 44-54),58 indicating a consensus among Contracting States to meet this standard, which affects the margin of appreciation in discrimination cases.59 30. This Court has also previously ruled that “very weighty reasons would have to be put forward before it could regard a difference in treatment based exclusively on the grounds of nationality as compatible with the Convention”.60 31. This Court applies a narrow margin of appreciation to a difference in treatment on the grounds of nationality. By analogy, the intervenors submit that a narrow margin of appreciation should be applied to a difference in treatment on the ground of documentation status, given the impact of the lack of documentation on an individual’s private and family life – particularly where it prevents immediate birth registration, confirmation of nationality, and increases the risk of statelessness. 32. Furthermore, the applicant’s personal situation must be taken into account “exactly as it stands” and dismissing the victim’s claims on the ground that they “could have avoided the discrimination by altering one of the factors in question – for example, by acquiring a nationality – would render Article 14 devoid of substance”. 61 It is very difficult for vulnerable populations, including Roma, to obtain documentation, often due to the lack of public measures to address systemic forms of discrimination in law or in practice. This makes documentation requirements challenging, if not impossible, to meet. 33. The right to birth registration is universal and unconditional. As such, children born to undocumented parents in a State’s territory are in a relevantly similar position to children born in the same territory to documented parents, particularly as the status of the parents should not influence the child’s right to birth registration. 34. The imposition of a requirement, in law or in practice, which allows documented parents to immediately register their child’s birth while requiring undocumented parents to undergo an additional court procedure to register the birth of their child, amounts to a differential treatment on the ground of documentation status. The ibid, § 89; D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, 13 November 2007, § 175; Varnas v. Lithuania, no. 42615/06, 9 July 2013, § 106; Hoogendijk v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 58641/00, 6 January 2005. 55 Molla Sali v. Greece [GC], no. 20452/14, 19 December 2018, § 134. 56 ibid, § 136. 57 ECtHR, ‘Guide on Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights and on Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention’ (August 2022), § 74, at echr.coe.int. 58 ENS, ‘Thematic Briefing, Birth registration and the prevention of statelessness in Europe’ (n 1), p. 4. 59 ECtHR, ‘Guide on Article 14’ (n 57), § 75. 60 Andrejeva v. Latvia [GC], no. 55707/00, 18 February 2009, § 87. 61 ibid, § 91. 54 6