G.T.B. v. SPAIN JUDGMENT the applicant’s birth. However, the protection of public order in that regard was not incompatible with assisting a person such as the applicant, in view of the particular vulnerability resulting from health and social factors, so as to protect a particularly important facet of the applicant’s identity (see paragraph 115 above). 125. The existence of a positive obligation being established, the Court will examine, therefore, first, at what point in time it can be said that the authorities were sufficiently aware of the particular situation for their positive obligation to arise, and, second, whether they took adequate action in discharging it. 126. Concerning, in the first place, at what point in time the authorities became aware of the need to take action in the face of the applicant’s mother’s inactivity in order to protect the applicant’s right to private life, the Court observes that various public authorities were appraised of his vulnerable situation for most of his life: when he was enrolled in public schools but did not attend school, which was even reported by the Minors Service of the Government of the Canary Islands (see paragraphs 10 ˗ 15 and 19 ˗ 20 above); as a teenager, when he committed several offences and was imposed correctional measures (see paragraphs 17 ˗ 18 above); when he tried unsuccessfully to enrol or complete academic or professional training (see paragraphs 23, 25 ˗ 27 above); when he was diagnosed with severe psychiatric and psychological disorders (see paragraphs 13 and 28 above). 127. However, the question before the Court is solely about the moment when the relevant authorities could have reasonably been expected to take active measures to secure the issuance of identity documents for the applicant. In this regard, it can be considered that the civil registration authorities became aware of the applicant’s difficulties to have his birth registered and as a consequence, to obtain an ID card at some point in mid-1999, when the procedure had to be suspended because of the impossibility to summon his mother (see paragraphs 37 ˗ 38 above). At all events, not later as from May 2002, when it became clear that the applicant’s mother would not be able to produce documents other than those she had submitted (see paragraphs 40 ˗ 42 above), it must have been plainly obvious for the relevant authorities that positive action was needed to ensure that the applicant did not remain without a registered identity. In the light of the above, the Court considers that the public authorities’ and, in particular, the Central Civil Registry’s positive obligation to assist the applicant in registering his birth and to act with due diligence in this respect, arose as from May 2002. 128. The Court must now assess whether the public authorities took adequate action in discharging their positive obligation. In this regard, it notes that in October 2002 the Central Civil Registry insisted on Ms X undertaking further steps at the Consular Affairs Directorate of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs despite the clear indication that she did not act with full diligence in the related administrative matters in the past and that the applicant, a minor 34