G.T.B. v. SPAIN JUDGMENT 58. The Council of State (Consejo de Estado) was consulted for a mandatory report on the complaint lodged. In its report of 23 July 2015, the Council of State observed that the complaint resulted from the alleged malfunctioning of public services belonging not only to the Ministry of the Interior but also to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation and the Ministry of Justice. Accordingly, the decision on potential State liability needed to be taken by the Ministry of the Presidency. 59. On 24 November 2015 the Ministry of the Presidency asked the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation to submit observations on whether they considered themselves competent to respond to the State liability claim and, if appropriate, to submit their decision. In response, the Ministry of Justice submitted a draft decision dismissing the complaint on account of the lack of a causal link between the delay in issuing an ID card and the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated that it was not competent, because its only intervention had been the repatriation from Mexico when the applicant had been two months old and the request to the Consul General in Mexico to search for any birth certificates there, which in its view had been merely procedural steps without any impact on the applicant’s State liability complaint. 60. The applicant received the observations of the Ministries but he did not submit any observations. 61. On 29 December 2015 the Ministry of Justice requested the judge at the Central Civil Registry to provide the relevant information to decide on the applicant’s State liability complaint. On 8 January 2016 the judge provided information about the steps that the applicant and his mother had taken in order to obtain his late birth registration and then an ID card, and concluded that, in the light of the facts, the delays in obtaining the documents in question had been justified. The judge also noted that consideration should be given to the possibility of the State liability claim against the public authorities being time-barred, since the limitation period of one year started counting from the point at which he could have lodged the complaint. In the opinion of the judge, the period had started running on 9 April 2013, when the applicant had been sent a full copy of the file on the proceedings at his own request. The complaint had been lodged on 20 April 2015. 62. In opinion no. 529/2016 of 7 July 2016, the Council of State found that it was appropriate to reject the State liability claim brought by the applicant in respect of the damage allegedly suffered as a consequence of the delay in obtaining the ID card, for two main reasons: (i) the applicant was affected by a psychiatric disorder which could not be causally linked to the acts or omissions of the public authorities; and (ii) the delay in obtaining the ID card had been a consequence of the impossibility of registering the birth at the Central Civil Registry, which was a prior and necessary procedure. In the Council of State’s view, although there had been some delays in some of 10