G.T.B. v. SPAIN JUDGMENT regard to the consequences for his right to respect for his private life was unjustified. 122. The Court considers that some adaptability in the standard procedures for the delivery of identity documents may be required when the circumstances make that imperative in order to safeguard important interests protected under Article 8 of the Convention, such as an individual’s right to have his birth registered and obtain, on that basis, access to identity documents. The Court observes that the substance of the applicant’s complaint in the present case is not that the State acted in a certain way infringing his rights but that it failed to act where, according to him, it should have (see Airey v. Ireland, 9 October 1979, § 32, Series A no. 32). In particular, having regard to the essence of his grievances and the manner in which he has worded them (see paragraphs 94 ˗ 100 above) the applicant complains about the alleged failure by the authorities to observe their positive obligations under Article 8 of the Convention in a situation where, as a minor, his right to respect for his private life was in jeopardy. The issue before the Court is not whether the procedure to register the applicant’s birth as such was adequate, but whether the public authorities had a positive obligation to ensure that a fair balance between the competing interests involved was struck, and in particular, ensure that the applicant’s right to have a recognised identity under Article 8 was not being violated. 123. The Court noted above the important repercussions that the lack of birth registration and consequent lack of access to identity documents can have for any person. In addition, the Court notes that the present case concerns a minor who started manifesting psychological disorders in 1996, at the age of eleven (see paragraph 13 above), and was diagnosed with various psychiatric conditions in 2002 (see paragraph 28 above), and whose only available parent failed to act diligently in securing the registration of his birth. Also, the applicant’s lack of identity documents had, to at least some extent, an impact on his ability to pursue academic studies and training; it also made him unable to secure stable job contracts, which affected his ability to organise his private and family life; and it contributed to increasing his feelings of anxiety and distress. 124. On the basis of the above, the Court considers that in the present case it was incumbent on the authorities to act in the best interests of the child whose birth registration was being sought in order to compensate for the mother’s failings and to prevent the child from being left unregistered and hence, without identity documents. The authorities were thus under a positive obligation stemming from Article 8 to act with due diligence in order to assist the applicant to obtain his birth certificate and his identity documents, to ensure effective respect for his private life (see, mutatis mutandis, Paketova and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 17808/19 and 36972/19, § 163, 4 October 2022). The Court agrees with the Government concerning the need to ensure that the information provided was reliable before proceeding with the registration of 33