G.T.B. v. SPAIN JUDGMENT for him to pursue his life goals. The reports stated that he had had a proactive attitude and had been motivated to work but the situation had prevented him from doing so. Moreover, Ms X had lost social benefits because neither he nor his brother had an ID card. 99. The applicant argued that having to change schools so often had been due to the fact that neither he nor his brother had an ID number, which had also given rise to his anxiety and his later criminal activity. The applicant also alleged that the situation which he had endured for many years had caused him very substantial physical and psychological damage. 100. The applicant argued that the interference with his right under Article 8 of the Convention was not covered by Article 8 § 2, since it had not been in accordance with the law and constituted a measure which had not been necessary in a democratic society. (b) The Government 101. The Government considered it important to clarify that the applicant’s lack of identification documents (namely, an ID card) was a direct consequence of his not having a birth certificate. In other words, he could not be issued with an ID card without having his birth registered prior to that. They further maintained that all the problems which had made it difficult for the applicant to be registered as a teenager and adult had simply been aggravated because of his mother’s behaviour. The Government asserted that Ms X had never attempted to register him either in Mexico or upon their arrival in Spain. She had only started the procedure when the applicant had been twelve years old, which had created enormous difficulties for the processing of the request because of the lack of any evidentiary documents to support her claim. The Government also pointed out that none of the above was directly related to a person’s nationality, and that the two aspects should not be mixed up. The applicant had not obtained an alternative ID card (which was issued to non-Spanish citizens) because his nationality had never been called into question. 102. That having been said, the Government submitted that the issue to be assessed under Article 8 of the Convention was whether the applicant’s right to respect for his private life could have been violated because his birth had not been registered for several years. 103. The Government argued that there was no interference by the Spanish authorities with the applicant’s right under Article 8. The applicant’s identity had never been denied by the public authorities, and no objection had made to issuing him with an ID card once the prerequisites had been fulfilled. The Spanish Government had repatriated the applicant in 1985 with Ms X without any doubt about his name, the fact that he was his mother’s son, or his Spanish nationality. The alleged psychological damage he claimed to have suffered as a consequence of not having an ID card many years later could 27