G.T.B. v. SPAIN JUDGMENT the lack of documentation certifying his identity is the cause of the applicant’s neuronal pathology, which apparently affects him, and therefore it is not possible to establish State liability as claimed.” VII. JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS FOR STATE LIABILITY 64. On 27 January 2016 the applicant brought judicial administrative proceedings, appealing against the implied rejection of his claim for State liability. His appeal was subsequently extended to cover the express rejection in accordance with the aforementioned decision of 7 July 2016. On 6 September 2016, the applicant increased the amount claimed to EUR 1,288,088.41, which included damage to his professional life in 2015 and 2016, as well as “damage caused by the non-compliance of the public authorities with their guardianship duties” (the latter amounted to EUR 358,051.60, without any further detail given as to how he had calculated it). 65. On 22 May 2017 the Audiencia Nacional declared the applicant’s appeal inadmissible in a judgment that noted the conditions that had to be met in order for a claim for State liability to be successful in accordance with the regulations in force: (i) real, economically quantifiable and individualised damage had been sustained by a person who had no legal duty to bear it; (ii) the damage had to be the result of the normal or abnormal operation of public services, and not caused by force majeure; (iii) there had to be a causal link between the functioning of the public service concerned and the damage or injury – it therefore had to be determined whether there was a causal link between the functioning of the public service and the damage or injury alleged, that is, whether it was attributable to the public authorities; and (iv) a period of one year had not elapsed between the occurrence of the damage and the time when the action for damages had been brought. 66. Next, the Audiencia Nacional assessed whether the burden of proving economically quantifiable and individualised damage had been met by the applicant. It found that this had not been duly proved, on the basis that the applicant had merely quantified the damage he had allegedly suffered (for the time spent without an ID card, his mental illnesses, the education certificates he had been unable to obtain, or the jobs he had been unable to find) but had not provided any explanation as to how he had come up with that amount. The Audiencia National considered that the applicant was confusing pecuniary damage (allegedly caused by his losing or being unable to start certain jobs) and non-pecuniary damage (based on his suffering) but had not explained any of the amounts he had claimed. 67. Moreover, it observed that in his initial administrative complaint (the applicant had not raised any allegations of non-compliance by the public authorities with their duties of protection while he had been under their watch (while serving the criminal measures imposed on him), and that he therefore 12