G.T.B. v. SPAIN JUDGMENT 51. On 6 June 2005 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Central Civil Registry about the delay in the proceedings to register his birth. He lodged a further complaint with the Santa Cruz de Tenerife public prosecutor’s office in September 2005. The public prosecutor’s office sent various requests for information about the proceedings to the Central Civil Registry. 52. On 28 October 2005 the Central Civil Registry asked Ms X to submit certificates of the studies pursued by her sons. She replied that although her sons had been enrolled in various schools and high schools, she had not been able to obtain any certificates because of their lack of an ID number. In view of the statement by Ms X that she was unable to submit any additional documents, on 8 March 2006 the public prosecutor issued a report in favour of the late registration of the applicant’s and his brother’s births. 53. On 13 March 2006 the judge at the Central Civil Registry gave a decision in which, in the light of the documents submitted, as well as the report by the forensic doctor, the witnesses’ statements, and the recognition given by the applicant’s mother and sister, the relationship between the applicant and Ms X was considered to have been proved. As a consequence, the judge approved the late registration of the births of the applicant and his older brother. 54. On 5 April 2006 the births were registered. 55. Following the birth registration, on 24 May 2006 the applicant, then twenty-one years old, was issued with an ID card. VI. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS FOR STATE LIABILITY 56. On 22 December 2014 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Ministry of the Interior of Spain, which he described as a “claim prior to bringing administrative proceedings”. He sought compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, which he did not quantify. The complaint did not meet formal legal requirements. 57. On 20 April 2015 the applicant submitted an amended complaint claiming damages caused by the undue delay in issuing his ID card. The applicant argued that his lack of an ID card for many years had prevented him from accessing the job market, obtaining a driving licence, or completing his education. He quantified his claim for compensation at 825,546.70 euros (EUR), which he later increased to EUR 930,081.36. The amount was broken down into “days in which he could not work”, “job-related pecuniary damage (before and after obtaining the ID card)”, “after-effects”, and an additional 10% as a “corrective factor”. Although he mentioned the lack of access to education, he did not quantify the amount claimed under that head. The complaint made no reference to a breach by the competent authorities of their duties relating to the care of minors. 9