be comparable to a denial of nationality by the State. 14. The Court has indicated that such denial of nationality “may raise an issue under Article 8” due to the consequences for the individual’s personal and family life.34 This is also true for any interference with Article 8 stemming from decisions concerning the acquisition,35 withdrawal,36 or revocation of nationality.37 Proportionality 15. This Court has previously held that the arbitrary denial of nationality, through inaction of the State, cannot be justifiable given the consequences on the enjoyment of private and family life of the individual.38 To determine whether a denial of nationality is arbitrary, the Court has applied principles established in cases relating to the deprivation of nationality, namely that any measure must be “in accordance with domestic law”, be “accompanied by necessary procedural safeguards”, and be “implemented diligently and swiftly by authorities”.39 A failure to comply with any of these requirements when refusing to issue identity documents or register an individual’s birth would amount to arbitrariness and a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.40 16. In addition to determining arbitrariness, it is also the role of the Court under Article 8 to consider whether decisions that interfere with the right to respect for private and family life strike a fair balance between individuals’ right to protection of their rights and the interests of the Contracting State.41 17. In all decisions concerning children, States are obliged to consider their best interests as a paramount importance.42 Given the importance of birth registration for a child’s ability to establish legal identity, exercise fundamental rights, and avoid the adverse consequences of statelessness, it can be concluded that it is never in the best interests of the child to not have access to a nationality (see paras 48 and 54 below). 18. The intervenors further submit that States have positive obligations to ensure respect for private and family, which includes obligations to facilitate birth registration and issue birth certificates. This procedure must be universally accessible and sufficiently flexible to ensure that children are not left unregistered. 19. Given the importance of birth registration on an individual’s private life, this Court found in G.T.B. v. Spain that States have a positive obligation to issue birth certificates and other identity documents.43 States are afforded a margin of appreciation to decide how to comply with positive obligations, a number of factors relating to the applicant will affect the width of that margin and must be assessed on an individualised basis.44 20. In particular, the margin of appreciation will be restricted “where a particularly important facet of an individual’s existence or identity is at stake”,45 as well as in cases concerning vulnerable persons, such as individuals without identity documents and Genovese v. Malta (n 32), § 33. S.-H v Poland (n 27), § 74. 36 Ramadan v. Malta, no. 76136/12, 21 June 2016, § 85. 37 Ghoumid and Others v. France (n 32), § 43. 38 Hashemi and Others (n 21), § 47. 39 ibid, § 46. 40 ibid, §§ 57-58; Ahmadov v. Azerbaijan (n 29), § 45. 41 Vavřička and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 47621/13, 8 April 2021, §§ 273-275. 42 ibid, §§ 287-288; Mennesson v. France (n 22), § 99; Labassee v. France (n 33), § 78; G.T.B. v. Spain (n 15), § 124. 43 G.T.B. v. Spain (n 15), § 119. 44 Strand Lobben and Others v. Norway [GC], no. 37283/13, 10 September 2019, § 211. 45 X and Y v. the Netherlands, no. 8978/80, 26 March 1985, §§ 24, 27; Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28957/95, 11 July 2002, § 90; G.T.B. v. Spain (n 15), § 115. 34 35 4