Too old to be a ‘foundling’? – International standards and comparative analysis – All the referenced commentaries from UNHCR, the European Council and the African Committee of Experts above indicate that it is ideal that the maximum age to be considered a foundling is higher than that of young children or infants. Furthermore, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, while not articulating on the right to nationality including of foundlings, has expressed concern that ‘children between 15 and 18 years tend to be provided much lower levels of protection’ in spite of the fact that the CRC grants the same rights to all children up to the age of 18, and calls on states to guarantee the rights under the Convention on an ‘equal’ basis as those under 15.137 G. Precedents Involving Children Above the Age of ‘Young Child’ When Found There are a small number of publicly available legal precedents known to the author where a child was found in the territory when above the age of infancy or ‘young child’ in common usage (above six to seven years old) and was confirmed as a national based on the relevant foundling provisions. One of them is from Spain, introduced at the outset of this article, whose foundling provision explicitly used the term ‘minor’ (of undetermined filiation).138 Most of the foundling-related decisions by the General Directorate of Registries and Notaries (DGRN), the Spanish competent authority, relate to those found as young children. This 2005 case,139 however, involved an undocumented female child claiming to be 11 years of age, who was found by the police of Catalonia engaged in begging on the streets in Barcelona along with the self-claimed father. The self-claimed parents were purportedly from Bosnia and Herzegovina and of Romanian nationality, but their identities were not established. They also stated the girl was born in Rome, which was not proven either. According to the decision, the relevant Child Care Directorate declared the minor to be in a situation of abandonment and arranged for the child to be hosted in a public reception centre, which subsequently produced a multidisciplinary report showing that the alleged parents did not prove their parentage over the girl. In confirming the child’s Spanish nationality, DGRN recalled that: [T]his conclusion is supported and confirmed by other superior principles of our legal system relevant in the case, such as the primacy of the child’s interest (…) and the right of every child to registration of their birth and a nationality resulting from Article 7 (of CRC) (emphasis added)’. In 2006, a child in a similar case was confirmed as a Spanish national by DGRN under the foundling provision, this time involving a male child, approximately eight years of age, of unknown parentage. The alleged parents were ‘apparently of Romanian nationality’ but proved neither their own identity nor parentage over the child. The child was of unknown birthplace (possibly born abroad, i.e. in Italy, as mentioned in paragraph 1 of the decision), but his first known place of stay was in Spain.140 137 Joint General Comment No 4 of CMW and No 23 of the CRC (2017), CMW/C/GC/4-CRC/C/GC/23. 138 Article 17(1)(d) of the Spanish Civil Code states: ‘The following persons are Spanish nationals of origin: (..). d) Those born in Spain whose parentage is not determined. To these effects, minors [los menores de edad] whose first known place of stay is Spanish territory are presumed to have been born in the Spanish territory.’ (author translation)’ Código Civil <https://www.boe.es/eli/es/rd/1889/07/24/ (1)/con>. 139 The DGRN resolution June 2005 (n 2). 140 Res. DGRN 2a de 3 de julio de 2006 (BOE, núm. 218,12-IX-2006)15896 <http://www.migrarconderechos.es/jurisprudenceMastertable/jurisprudencia/Res_DGRN_03_07_2006>. Author thanks Professor Aurelia Álvarez Rodríguez and Professor Nacho Hernandez Moreno for guiding her to the decision. European University Institute 40