nach oben

Erschienen in:

2019 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

The European Court of Human Rights Shaping Family Life in Cross-border Surrogacy: The Paradiso et Campanelli Case

verfasst von : Mario Gervasi

Erschienen in: Use and Misuse of New Technologies

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Cross-border surrogacy has become increasingly common: people from countries where surrogacy is forbidden make recourse to it abroad. Yet, the home country’s ban on surrogacy may prevent the continuity of the family status established abroad. Such cases have been brought also before the European Court of Human Rights for the alleged violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The judgment that the Grand Chamber issued in the Paradiso et Campanelli c. Italie case is significant for the interaction between the determination of family life and the technological nature of modern surrogate motherhood. The denial that there had been de facto family life raises doubts because of the weight given to the time factor and to the absence of genetic and legally recognised ties between the intending parents and the child born from surrogacy. Still, having found that there had been no family life, the Grand Chamber did not need to balance the right to respect for family life against the State margin of appreciation, which would have proved difficult. It is suggested that the difficulties in balancing the protection of family unity against the State margin of appreciation are due to the technological nature of contemporary surrogate motherhood. Additionally, should surrogacy become increasingly permitted, the Paradiso et Campanelli final judgment would not hinder the European Court of Human Rights from finding the existence of de facto family life and a breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights in cases where the child born from surrogacy were separated from their intending parents.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Vorheriges Kapitel The Passenger Name Record Case: Profiling Privacy and Data Protection Issues in Light of CJEU’s Opinion 1/15

Nächstes Kapitel Hybrid Governance or… Nothing? The EU Code of Conduct on Combatting Illegal Hate Speech Online

See also Spar (2005), pp. 292–299.

See Stark (2012), pp. 379–380 and 386; Poli (2015), pp. 10–18; Watson (2016). In particular, commercial surrogacy is said to be incompatible with “objective” human dignity, but for some critical remarks on the very existence of such notion in international law see De Sena (2017).

See Humbyrd (2009); Stark (2012), pp. 377–378; Panitch (2013), p. 340; Straehle (2016); Wilkinson (2016), p. 137.

See the Preliminary Report on the Issues Arising from International Surrogacy Arrangements, drawn by the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, March 2012, pp. 9–18.

See Trimmings and Beaumont (2011), pp. 629–633; Ergas (2013), pp. 127–128; Audit (2014), pp. 388–389; Fulchiron (2014), pp. 564–565. See also Laufer-Ukeles (2013), pp. 1275–1278, arguing the need for domestic regulation of surrogate motherhood by reason of the “morally and practically more problematic” nature of cross-border surrogacy.

See again the Preliminary Report on the Issues Arising from International Surrogacy Arrangements, drawn by the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, cit., pp. 19–24. See also Campiglio (2009); Tonolo (2014).

For an overview of the main trends in the ECtHR case law generally concerning the continuity of transnational private or family status see Davì (2012), p. 439 ff.; Marongiu Buonaiuti (2016). As specifically regards parentage and the role of the best interests of the child see Tonolo (2017), especially pp. 1074–1080 and 1091–1095.

Article 16(7) of the French Code civil.

Mennesson c. France (App. No. 65192/11), ECtHR, judgment of 26 June 2014; Labassee c. France (App. No. 65941/11), ECtHR, judgment of 26 June 2014. For some remarks on the twin judgments see Campiglio (2014a); Chénedé (2014); D’Avout (2014); Giungi (2014); Guillaumé (2014); Isailović (2014). Later, the ECtHR basically applied the Mennesson and Labassee precedents to the similar cases Foulon et Bouvet c. France (App. Nos. 9063/14 and 10410/14), judgment of 21 July 2016, and Laborie c. France (App. No. 44024/13), judgment of 19 January 2017.

Article 12(6) of the Italian Legge No. 40 of 19 February 2004, in Gazzetta Ufficiale No. 45 of 24 February 2004. For an overview of the evolution of the Italian law on artificially assisted reproduction in the light of the case law of the Italian Constitutional Court and the ECtHR see Campiglio (2014b). In the judgment No. 272 of 22 November-18 December 2017, the Italian Constitutional Court abstained from assessing the lawfulness of the prohibition on surrogate motherhood as well as the possibility of registering the particulars of foreign birth certificates based on surrogacy agreements in Italy, but limited itself to assessing the constitutionality of the rules governing the contestation of parentage owing to the lack of a biological tie between the child and the assumed parent.

Paradiso et Campanelli c. Italie (App. No. 25358/12), ECtHR, judgment of 27 January 2015.

Paradiso et Campanelli c. Italie (App. No. 25358/12), ECtHR [GC], judgment of 24 January 2017.

In this connection, the disagreement was limited to the Italian courts’ assessment of the impact of the non-existence of biological ties on the Russian birth certificate under Russian law (Paradiso et Campanelli [GC] cit., paras. 143–146).

Paradiso et Campanelli [GC] cit., para. 153.

Ibid., para. 151.

For some critical remarks on the importance given to the time factor see also Poli (2017); Viviani (2017), p. 82.

Paradiso et Campanelli cit., para. 69.

Ibid.

Paradiso et Campanelli [GC] cit., joint dissenting opinion of Judges Lazarova Trajkovska, Bianku, Laffranque, Lemmens and Grozev, paras. 4–5.

Paradiso et Campanelli [GC] cit., para. 153.

See again Poli (2017), also noting the incoherence of the Grand Chamber reasoning.

Paradiso et Campanelli [GC] cit., para. 157.

D. et autres c. Belgique (App. No. 29176/13), ECtHR, decision of 8 July 2014.

Paradiso et Campanelli [GC] cit., para. 154.

Ibid., para. 155.

Ibid., para. 156.

See especially Murat (2002), pp. 161–162.

Accordingly, it went on to verify the existence of de facto family life only after it had found the absence of genetic links (Paradiso et Campanelli [GC] cit., para. 142 ff.) as well as the incompatibility of the relationship with Italian law (ibid., paras. 147–148).

In this connection, see also Viviani (2017), p. 82.

See ex pluribus Pitea and Tomasi (2012), p. 300; Rainey et al. (2014), p. 335; Schabas (2015), pp. 389–390.

Paradiso et Campanelli [GC] cit., para 140.

In a decision of 23 February 2017, also the Trento Court of Appeal, in Italy, seemingly noticed that in the end the ECtHR Grand Chamber had disregarded the factual nature of the family life notion despite bringing it up. According to the Italian Court, since the Grand Chamber had reaffirmed the factual basis of the family life notion, the weight given to the absence of genetic ties between the intending parents and the child born from surrogacy could not be considered as a precedent. For some remarks on that decision see Schillaci (2017).

Wagner and J.M.W.L. v. Luxembourg (App. No 76240/01), ECtHR, judgment of 28 June 2007.

Paradiso et Campanelli [GC] cit., para. 156.

Wagner and J.M.W.L. cit., para. 117.

Moretti et Benedetti c. Italie (App. No 16318/07), ECtHR, judgment of 27 April 2010.

Ibid., para. 48.

Kopf and Liberda v. Austria (App. No. 1598/06), ECtHR, judgment of 17 January 2012.

Ibid., paras. 36–37.

Paradiso et Campanelli [GC] cit., para. 156.

Nazarenko v. Russia (App. No 39438/13), ECtHR, judgment of 16 July 2015.

Ibid., para. 58.

Ibid.

Mennesson cit., para. 45; Labassee cit., para. 37.

See also Danisi (2014); Winkler (2015), p. 255; Baratta (2016), p. 323.

On the essential importance of the existence of family life in the Paradiso et Campanelli case see again Poli (2017).

For instance, in assessing the reasons for the child’s removal against the right of the intending parents to respect for their private life, the Grand Chamber observed that, differently from the Chamber, it considered that the circumstances of the case triggered only the notion of private life, and not that of family life (Paradiso et Campanelli [GC] cit., para. 198). Moreover, in assessing the compatibility of the child’s removal with the right of the intending parents to respect for their private life from the perspective of proportionality, the Grand Chamber specified that the child was not a member of the applicants’ family under Article 8 ECHR and that therefore a distinction had to be drawn between Paradiso et Campanelli and those cases concerning the separation of a child from their parents (Paradiso et Campanelli [GC] cit., paras. 208–209).

Mennesson cit., paras. 92–94; Labassee cit., paras. 71–73.

Mennesson cit., paras. 78–79; Labassee cit., paras. 57–58.

Paradiso et Campanelli [GC] cit., paras. 194, 200 and 215.

Ibid., para. 194. In this connection, the individual opinions attached to the final judgment in the Paradiso et Campanelli case are especially telling since the relevant arguments were not only legal, but also moral or political in nature. For instance, in his concurring opinion, Judge Dedov compared surrogate motherhood to prostitution or pornography, as they were all sources of income for someone considering their beauty or health as their only resource (ibid., concurring opinion of Judge Dedov, p. 61). He denied any solidarity in surrogate motherhood since solidarity should be shown only with someone risking their life and without posing health risks, according to people’s reaction to the European migration crisis: “we are ready to accept the immigrants on the basis of solidarity, but we are not ready to put our lives at risk” (ibid., p. 62). Moreover, Judge Dedov stated that surrogate motherhood infringed fundamental principles of human civilisation (ibid., p. 64) and that the Italian prohibition on surrogacy had been approved on the basis of Christian values (ibid., p. 63).

Mennesson cit., paras. 78–79; Labassee cit., paras. 57–58.

See ex multis Benvenisti (1999), pp. 850–853; Dzehtsiarou (2011); Mowbray (2013), pp. 35–36.

Paradiso et Campanelli [GC] cit., para. 200.

Ibid., para. 215.

Mennesson cit., para. 80; Labassee cit., para. 59.

Paradiso et Campanelli cit., para. 80.

Pontes c. Portugal (App. no 19554/09), ECtHR, judgment of 10 April 2012, para. 74 ff.

Zhou c. Italie (App. no 33773/11), ECtHR, judgment of 21 January 2014, para. 55 ff.

Paradiso et Campanelli cit., para. 88.

Ibid., joint partly dissenting opinion of Judges Raimondi and Spano, para. 13.

Ibid., para. 15.

Ibid.

Italian Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Relazione al Parlamento, p. 34.

Paradiso et Campanelli [GC] cit., joint dissenting opinion of Judges Lazarova Trajkovska, Bianku, Laffranque, Lemmens and Grozev, paras. 7 and 9.

Paradiso et Campanelli [GC] cit., para. 209.

Ibid., paras. 208–209.

The question whether the right to respect for private and family life under Article 8 ECHR requires the continuity of the family status established abroad on the basis of surrogate motherhood agreements cannot be addressed here, but see Gervasi (2018) and the references there included.

See ex pluribus Sudre (2002), p. 11 ff.; Sicilianos (2015).

The possibility for the ECtHR to ignore the criteria that the Grand Chamber adopted in finding that there had been no de facto family life in the Paradiso et Campanelli case does not imply that the ECtHR will do so. Accordingly, the illustrated risks of a merely quantitative determination of de facto family life and a decline in the autonomous application thereof remain.

With this regard, the words of Judge Dedov are especially telling. In his concurring opinion annexed to the final judgment in the Paradiso et Campanelli case, he observed that, in the light of the number of States prohibiting and States permitting or tolerating surrogacy, “one may even conclude that surrogacy is ‘winning’” (Paradiso et Campanelli [GC] cit., concurring opinion of Judge Dedov, p. 63).

On the increasing role of technique in decision-making see Severino (2017), passim, for instance p. 37 ff., especially pp. 38–39, or p. 143 ff., especially pp. 146–147. See also Galimberti (2011), p. 446 ff., and (2016), p. 207 ff., especially pp. 217–219.

Audit, Mathias. 2014. Bioéthique et droit international privé. In Recueil des cours de l’Académie de Droit International de la Haye, vol. 373. Leiden: Brill.

Baratta, Roberto. 2016. Diritti fondamentali e riconoscimento dello status filii in casi di maternità surrogata: la primazia degli interessi del minore. Diritti umani e diritto internazionale 10: 309–334.

Benvenisti, Eyal. 1999. Margin of Appreciation, Consensus, and Universal Standards. New York University Journal of International Law and Politics 31: 843–854.

Campiglio, Cristina. 2009. Lo stato di figlio nato da contratto internazionale di maternità. Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale XLV: 589–604.

———. 2014a. Il diritto all’identità personale del figlio nato all’estero da madre surrogata (ovvero, la lenta agonia del limite dell’ordine pubblico). Nuova giurisprudenza civile commentata XXX: 1132–1139.

———. 2014b. Norme italiane sulla procreazione assistita e parametri internazionali: il ruolo creativo della giurisprudenza. Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale L: 481–516.

Chénedé, François. 2014. Les arrêts Mennesson et Labassée ou l’instrumentalisation des droits de l’homme. Recueil Dalloz 190: 1797–1805.

Danisi, Carmelo. 2014. Superiore interesse del fanciullo, vita familiare o diritto all’identità personale per il figlio nato da una gestazione per altri all’estero? L’arte del compromesso a Strasburgo. http://www.articolo29.it.

D’Avout, Louis. 2014. La «reconnaissance» de la filiation issue d’une gestation pour autrui à l’étranger, après les arrêts Mennesson et Labassée. Recueil Dalloz 190: 1806–1810.

Davì, Angelo. 2012. Le renvoi en droit international privé. In Recueil des cours de l’Académie de Droit International de la Haye, vol. 352. Leiden: Brill.

De Sena, Pasquale. 2017. Dignità umana in senso oggettivo e diritto internazionale. Diritti umani e diritto internazionale 11: 573–586.

Dzehtsiarou, Kanstantsin. 2011. European Consensus and the Evolutive Interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights. German Law Journal 12: 1730–1745.CrossRef

Ergas, Yasmine. 2013. Babies Without Borders: Human Rights, Human Dignity, and the Regulation of International Commercial Surrogacy. Emory International Law Review 27: 117–188.

Fulchiron, Hugues. 2014. La lutte contre le tourisme procréatif: vers un instrument de coopération internationale? Journal du droit international. Clunet 141: 563–588.

Galimberti, Umberto. 2011. Psiche e techne. L’uomo nell’età della tecnica. VIII ed. Milano: Feltrinelli.

———. 2016. I miti del nostro tempo. VI ed. Milano: Feltrinelli.

Gervasi, Mario. 2018. The European Court of Human Rights and Technological Development: The Issue of the Continuity of the Family Status Established Abroad Through Recourse to Surrogate Motherhood. Diritti umani e diritto internazionale 12: 213–242.

Giungi, Maria Maddalena. 2014. Mennesson c. Francia e Labassee c. Francia: le molteplici sfumature della surrogazione di maternità. Quaderni costituzionali. Rivista italiana di diritto costituzionale XXXIV: 953–957.

Guillaumé, Johanna. 2014. Note. Journal du droit international. Clunet 141: 1270–1281.

Humbyrd, Casey. 2009. Fair Trade International Surrogacy. Developing World Bioethics 9: 111–118.CrossRef

Isailović, Ivana. 2014. The ECtHR and the Regulation of Transnational Surrogacy Agreements. https://www.ejiltalk.org.

Laufer-Ukeles, Pamela. 2013. Mothering for Money: Regulating Commercial Intimacy. Indiana Law Journal 88: 1223–1279.

Marongiu Buonaiuti, Fabrizio. 2016. La continuità internazionale delle situazioni giuridiche e la tutela dei diritti umani di natura sostanziale: strumenti e limiti. Diritti umani e diritto internazionale 10: 49–88.

Mowbray, Alastair. 2013. Between the Will of the Contracting Parties and the Needs of Today. Extending the Scope of Convention Rights and Freedoms Beyond What Could Have Been Foreseen by the Drafters of the ECHR. In Shaping Rights in the ECHR. The Role of the European Court of Human Rights in Determining the Scope of Human Rights, ed. Eva Brems and Janneke Gerards, 17–37. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Murat, Pierre. 2002. Filiation et vie familiale. In Le droit au respect de la vie familiale au sens de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme, ed. Frédéric Sudre, 161–208. Bruxelles: Bruylant.

Panitch, Vida. 2013. Global Surrogacy: Exploitation to Empowerment. Journal of Global Ethics 9: 329–343.CrossRef

Pitea, Cesare, and Laura Tomasi. 2012. Articolo 8. In Commentario breve alla Convenzione europea per la salvaguardia dei diritti dell’uomo e delle libertà fondamentali, ed. Sergio Bartole, Pasquale de Sena, and Vladimiro Zagrebelsky, 297–369. Padova: Cedam.

Poli, Ludovica. 2015. Maternità surrogata e diritti umani: una pratica controversa che necessita di una regolamentazione internazionale. BioLaw Journal – Rivista di BioDiritto: 7–28.

———. 2017. La Grande Camera e l’ultima parola sul caso Paradiso e Campanelli. http://www.sidiblog.org.

Rainey, Bernadette, Elizabeth Wicks, and Clare Ovey. 2014. Jacobs, White, and Ovey. The European Convention on Human Rights. VI ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef

Schabas, William. 2015. The European Convention on Human Rights. A Commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Schillaci, Angelo. 2017. Due padri, i loro figli: la Corte d’Appello di Trento riconosce, per la prima volta, il legame tra i figli e il padre non genetico. http://www.articolo29.it.

Severino, Emanuele. 2017. Il tramonto della politica. Considerazioni sul futuro del mondo. Milano: Rizzoli.

Sicilianos, Linos-Alexander. 2015. La vie familiale en tant que notion autonome au regard de la CEDH. In Mélanges en l’honneur de / Essays in Honour of Dean Spielmann. Liber Amicorum Dean Spielmann, ed. Josep Casadevall, Guido Raimondi, Erik Fribergh, Patrick Titiun, Peter Kempees, and John Darcy, 595–602. Oisterwijk: Wolf Legal Publishers.

Spar, Debora. 2005. For Love and Money: The Political Economy of Commercial Surrogacy. Review of International Political Economy 12: 287–309.CrossRef

Stark, Barbara. 2012. Transnational Surrogacy and International Human Rights Law. ILSA Journal of International and Comparative Law 18: 369–386.

Straehle, Christine. 2016. Is There a Right to Surrogacy? Journal of Applied Philosophy 33: 146–159.CrossRef

Sudre, Frédéric. 2002. Rapport introductif. La «construction» par le juge européen du droit au respect de la vie familiale. In Le droit au respect de la vie familiale au sens de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme, ed. Frédéric Sudre, 11–54. Bruxelles: Bruylant.

Tonolo, Sara. 2014. La trascrizione degli atti di nascita derivanti da maternità surrogata: ordine pubblico e interesse del minore. Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale L: 81–104.

———. 2017. L’evoluzione dei rapporti di filiazione e la riconoscibilità dello status da essi derivante tra ordine pubblico e superiore interesse del minore. Rivista di diritto internazionaleC: 1070–1102.

Trimmings, Katarina, and Paul Beaumont. 2011. International Surrogacy Arrangements: An Urgent Need for Legal Regulation at the International Level. Journal of Private International Law 7: 627–647.CrossRef

Viviani, Alessandra. 2017. Paradiso e Campanelli di fronte alla Grande Camera: un nuovo limite per le “famiglie di fatto”? GenIUS. Rivista di studi giuridici sull’orientamento sessuale e l’identità di genere 4(1): 78–86.

Watson, Clara. 2016. Womb Rentals and Baby-Selling: Does Surrogacy Undermine the Human Dignity and Rights of the Surrogate Mother and Child? The New Bioethics 22: 212–228.CrossRef

Wilkinson, Stephen. 2016. Exploitation in International Paid Surrogacy Arrangements. Journal of Applied Philosophy 33: 125–145.CrossRef

Winkler, Matteo. 2015. Senza identità: il caso Paradiso e Campanelli c. Italia. GenIUS. Rivista di studi giuridici sull’orientamento sessuale e l’identità di genere 2(1): 243–257.

Titel: The European Court of Human Rights Shaping Family Life in Cross-border Surrogacy: The Paradiso et Campanelli Case
verfasst von: Mario Gervasi
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Buch: Use and Misuse of New Technologies
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-05647-6

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-030-05648-3

Copyright-Jahr: 2019
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05648-3_8

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"