ISUFI v. SERBIA DECISION the applicant’s birth was not registered and he remained without identity documents for a total of 21 years, his mother having only applied for registration when he was 12 years old. Also, the applicant’s birth was registered approximately seven years after the authorities became aware that his mother could not be summoned and four years after it became obvious that no further documents could be provided by her in the relevant domestic proceedings. In the Court’s view, once it had become clear that no further documents could be provided, a positive obligation under Article 8 of the Convention had arisen for the respondent State to assist the applicant (who had been a vulnerable minor) in securing the registration of his birth (ibid., § 124). It is further noted that the applicant in G.T.B. v. Spain had, inter alia, a record of psychological issues. As a consequence of not having identity documents, he also encountered difficulties in pursuing academic studies and training programmes and could not secure stable employment, all of which adversely affected his private and family life (ibid., § 126). There are thus no relevantly comparable circumstances to the present case. 24. Lastly, the Court observes that the time taken to complete the birth registration procedure in the specific circumstances of the present case cannot be deemed excessive. 25. In view of the foregoing, the Court concludes that it is no longer justified to continue with the examination of the present application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. It is clear from this provision that the Court enjoys a wide discretion in identifying grounds capable of being relied upon in striking out an application on this basis. Such grounds must reside in the particular circumstances of each case (see Association SOS Attentats and de Boery v. France [GC], (dec.), no. 76642/01, § 37, ECHR 2006‑XIV, and Kirov and Others v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 57214/09, § 40, 9 January 2018; see also, for example, Mik and Jovanović v. Serbia (dec.), nos. 9291/14 and 63798/14, § 52, 23 March 2021, and, mutatis mutandis, Sisojeva and Others v. Latvia (striking out) [GC], no. 60654/00, §§ 102-104, ECHR 2007-I). There are also no particular reasons regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention which would require the Court to continue its examination of the case under Article 37 § 1 in fine. Accordingly, the application should be struck out of the Court’s list of cases. 26. It is, of course, understood in this connection that any issues which could arise in the wider context of the present case but are not directly related to the applicant’s situation at the material time cannot be considered in abstracto but rather in the particular circumstances of a possible future application (see, mutatis mutandis, Mik and Jovanović, cited above, § 52, with further references). 27. It is also not necessary for the Court to examine separately the inadmissibility objections raised by the Government in paragraph 15 above 5