Hungarian Journal of Legal Studies
DOI: 10.1556/2052.2023.00421
The right to respect for private and family life of
children born through international surrogacy
in the case law of the European court of
human rights
MÁRK PAP1,2
1
District Court of Keszthely, Hungary
2
Eötvös Loránd University Faculty of Law, Hungary
p
ORIGINAL RESEARCH PAPER
Received: September 13, 2022 • Accepted: June 6, 2023
© 2023 The Author(s)
ABSTRACT
The ECHR is a general human rights convention, but it contains some provisions that have gained
particular importance in the case law of the ECtHR regarding the human rights of children. Such a provision is, among others, Article 8 on the right to respect for private and family life, the interpretation of
which has raised many questions in cases related to children born through international surrogacy. These
questions have arisen in relation to the intended parents’ standing to bring an application before the Court
on behalf of the child, the criteria for ascertaining the interference of the respondent state with the child’s
right to respect for his private and family life, as well as the specific content of the requirements that must
be met for the interference to be justified. By analysing these questions and the answers the Court gave to
them, this article attempts to give an overview of the state’s obligations to ensure the right of a child born
through international surrogacy to respect for his private and family life in connection with the recognition
of the parent-child relationship between the intended parents and the child.
KEYWORDS
child’s best interests, international surrogacy, recognition of parenthood, respect for private and family life
p
Corresponding author. E-mail: papm87@gmail.com
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 10/08/23 07:29 PM UTC
2
Hungarian Journal of Legal Studies
1. INTRODUCTION
The European Convention on Human Rights (‘ECHR’ or ‘Convention’) provides that the rights
and freedoms defined in it shall be secured to everyone within the jurisdiction of the contracting
states.1 Evidently, the term ‘everyone’ also includes children, but in addition, the ECHR specifically emphasizes that the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in it shall be secured
without discrimination on any ground2 such as - according to the case law of the European Court
of Human Rights (‘ECtHR’ or ‘Court’) - age.3 Consequently, children are also protected by the
Convention and they are entitled to the general human rights set out in the ECHR in the same
way as any other individual.4 The Convention, however, does not provide for children’s rights,5
i.e. the special human rights6 that recognize children’s needs for special safeguard and care.7
Nevertheless, the case law of the ECtHR demonstrates that some provisions of the Convention
are of outstanding significance for children, and Article 8 is such a provision in particular.8
Article 8 paragraph 1 of the ECHR declares, among others, that everyone has the right to
respect for his private and family life. Pursuant to Article 8 paragraph 2, an interference of a
public authority with the exercise of this right is in breach of the Convention unless it is in
accordance with the law, pursues a legitimate aim set out in this paragraph (i.e., national security, public safety, the economic well-being of the country, the prevention of disorder or crime,
the protection of health or morals, and the protection of the rights and freedoms of others), and
is necessary in a democratic society to achieve this legitimate aim.
In the Court’s case law relating to Article 8 of the ECHR, numerous significant questions
have arisen over the past decade regarding the right to respect for private and family life of
children born through international surrogacy.9 The term surrogacy refers to a reproductive
1
Article 1 of the ECHR.
2
Article 14 of the ECHR.
3
E.g., Schwizgebel v Switzerland App no 25762/07 (ECtHR 10 June 2010) § 85; British Ghurka Welfare Society and
Others v the United Kingdom App no 44818/1 (ECtHR 15 September 2016) § 88; Carvalho Pinto da Sousa Morais v
Portugal App no 17484/15 (ECtHR 25 July 2017) § 45.
4
Balázs (2016) 38, Monteiro (2020) 374.
5
The ECHR only mentions the detention of minors in Article 5 paragraph 1 (d) among the exceptions to the right to
liberty and security, and the interests of juveniles in the context of the right to a fair trial in Article 6 paragraph 1
among the exceptions to the rule of publicity. Besides this, Article 5 of the Protocol No. 7 to the ECHR declares that
spouses shall enjoy equality of rights and responsibilities in their relations with their children and sets forth that this
Article shall not prevent states from taking such measures as are necessary in the interests of the children.
6
Vandenhole (2017) 21.
7
Preamble of the Declaration of the Rights of the Child adopted by the United Nations General Assembly Resolution
1386 (XIV) of 10 December 1959.
8
Kilkelly (2001) 312, Fortin (2006) 301–4, Besson (2007) 142–6, Kilkelly (2010) 248, Florescu, Liefaard and Bruning
(2015) 451, Jardí (2015) 103–19.
9
Mennesson v France App no 65192/11 (ECtHR 26 June 2014), Labassee v France App no 65941/11 (ECtHR 26 June
2014), Foulon and Bouvet v France App no 9063/14 and 10410/14 (ECtHR 21 July 2016), Laborie v France App no
44024/13 (ECtHR 19 January 2017), Paradiso and Campanelli v Italy App no 25358/12 (ECtHR 24 January 2017), C. and
E. v France App no 1462/18 and 17348/18 (ECtHR 12 December 2019), D. v France App no 11288/18 (ECtHR 16 July
2020), Valdís Fjölnisdóttir and Others v Iceland App no 71552/17 (ECtHR 18 May 2021). Only the rights of the intended
parents were the subject of the following proceedings: D. and Others v Belgium App no 29176/13 (ECtHR 8 July 2014),
A.M. v Norway App no 30254/18 (ECtHR 24 March 2022), A.L. v France App no 13344/20 (ECtHR 7 April 2022).
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 10/08/23 07:29 PM UTC
3
Hungarian Journal of Legal Studies
procedure whereby a woman (the surrogate mother) and another person or a couple (the
intended parents) enter into an agreement (the surrogacy arrangement) based on which the
surrogate mother carries a pregnancy and, after the birth, hands over the child to the intended
parents so that they raise him as their own.10 Forms of surrogacy can be distinguished in several
ways but from a legal point of view, the following distinctions are of the greatest importance.
Depending on whether the surrogate mother undertakes to participate in the reproductive
procedure for free or is remunerated by the intended parents, we can make a distinction between
altruistic (or non-commercial) and commercial surrogacy.11 It is worth noting that it does not
change the altruistic nature of surrogacy if the intended parents only reimburse the surrogate
mother for her medical and other necessary expenses related to the pregnancy and the birth of
the child.12
Another distinction can be made according to whether the surrogate mother’s ovum is used
for the purpose of the reproductive procedure, in which sense we can talk about traditional (or
partial) and gestational (or full) surrogacy.13 Traditional surrogacy means that the ovum of the
surrogate mother is fertilized with the intended father’s or an anonymous donor’s semen, thus
the surrogate mother is always the child’s genetic mother.14 In contrast, the essence of gestational surrogacy is that the ovum of the intended mother or an anonymous donor is fertilized
in vitro with the sperm of the intended father or an anonymous donor, and is implanted in the
uterus of the surrogate mother.15 In this case, the surrogate mother never has a genetic relationship with the child,16 but it is also possible that none of the intended parents are genetically
related to him either.17
According to general opinion, it is primarily the commercial form of surrogacy that carries
the risk of commodification of children and exploitation of women,18 while it is true for all
forms of surrogacy that they challenge the traditional legal concept of motherhood which is
based on the principle of ʻmater semper certa est’ designating the woman giving birth to the child
10
Arenstein (1988) 831, Ramsey (2000) 49, Horsey (2010) 452, Stark (2012) 369, Bromfield and Smith Rotabi (2014) 124,
Sucker (2015) 257, Kriari and Valongo (2016) 332, Bracken (2017) 369, Iliadou (2017) 129, Hevia (2018) 375,
Ní Shúilleabháin (2019) 105, Weiss (2019) 343, Garayová (2022) 66.
11
Ramsey (2000) 49, Gruenbaum (2012) 479, Stark (2012) 369, Bracken (2017) 369, Hevia (2018) 375–76, Sándor (2018)
37–42.
12
Arenstein (1988) 833, Gabry (2012) 447–48, Bracken (2017) 369, Cascão (2016) 152.
13
Gabry (2012) 418–19, Gruenbaum (2012) 479–80, Stark (2012) 369–70, Bromfield and Smith Rotabi (2014) 124, Bernat
(2016) 4, Kriari and Valongo (2016) 332, Bracken (2017) 369, Navratyil (2017) 101, Sándor (2018) 36.
14
Navratyil (2010) 193–94, Hisano (2011) 520, 526–27, Gabry (2012) 419, Stark (2012) 369–70, Bromfield and Smith
Rotabi (2014) 124, Bernat (2016) 4, Cascão (2016) 152, Kriari and Valongo (2016) 332, Iliadou (2017) 129–31,
Hevia (2018) 375, Pol (2018) 1311–12, Sándor (2018) 36, Ní Shúilleabháin (2019) 105, Garayová (2022) 66.
15
Navratyil (2010) 193–94, Hisano (2011) 520, 527–28, Gabry (2012) 419, Stark (2012) 369–70, Bromfield and Smith
Rotabi (2014) 124, Bernat (2016) 4, Cascão (2016) 152, Kriari and Valongo (2016) 332, Iliadou (2017) 129–31,
Hevia (2018) 375, Pol (2018) 1311–12, Sándor (2018) 36, Ní Shúilleabháin (2019) 105, Garayová (2022) 66.
16
Hisano (2011) 527, Bracken (2017) 369, Iliadou (2017) 137, Ní Shúilleabháin (2019) 105.
17
Hisano (2011) 528, Navratyil (2010) 194, Gabry (2012) 419.
18
Arenstein (1988) 831–33, Ramsey (2000) 49, Alghrani (2012) 633, Gabry (2012) 439–41, Stark (2012) 374, Bromfield
and Smith Rotabi (2014) 124, 128, Orfali and Chiappori (2014) 33–34, Bernat (2016) 23–26, Cascão (2016) 154–56,
Fenton-Glynn (2016) 66–69, 71–72, Snyder (2016) 278, Ní Shúilleabháin (2019) 105.
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 10/08/23 07:29 PM UTC
4
Hungarian Journal of Legal Studies
as the legal mother.19 In addition, surrogacy raises many human rights issues, primarily on the
part of the child (e.g., the right to an identity, the right to access to origins, the right not to be
sold) and the surrogate mother (e.g., gender inequality, the right to bodily integrity).20 These are
the main reasons why surrogacy is a morally and legally complex issue, and its prohibition or
legalization is surrounded by controversy in many countries.21
In this discussion, national legislations have taken different positions, ranging from strict
prohibition to full legalization, while there are legal systems where surrogacy is still not regulated.22 Residents of countries where surrogacy is banned or unregulated often enter into surrogacy arrangements with surrogate mothers living in countries that allow surrogacy and
recognize the intended parents’ legal parental status.23 This brings us to the third way of
distinguishing the forms of surrogacy which differentiates according to whether the intended
parents enter into a surrogacy arrangement with a surrogate mother from their country of
residence or from another country. In the former case, we are talking about domestic surrogacy,
while the latter is called international (cross-border, transnational or global) surrogacy.24
Human rights related problems may arise primarily in the case of international surrogacy if
the intended parents aim to bring up the child in their country of residence where this reproductive procedure is illegal or not regulated, and therefore the authorities refuse to recognize
them as the child’s legal parents.25 In this case, according to the principle of ʻmater semper certa
est’, the surrogate mother is considered the legal mother,26 while the intended mother can only
become the legal mother by adopting the child.27 Establishing maternity based on this principle
also directly affects the legal status of the father. Since the spouse of the woman giving birth to
the child is presumed to be the child’s father (the principle of ‘pater vero is est quem nuptiae
demonstrant’),28 the intended father must first contest the paternity of the surrogate mother’s
husband in order to have the opportunity to legally establish his own fatherhood.29 If the
surrogate mother is unmarried, or the intended father has successfully contested the paternity
of the surrogate mother’s husband, the intended father can establish his fatherhood by making
19
Steinbock (2005) 287, Hisano (2011) 529–31, Horsey (2010) 456, Monéger (2010) 239, Gruenbaum (2012) 475–78,
Stark (2012) 374, Margaria (2020) 415, 422, Tesfaye (2022) 4.
20
Gostin (2001) 432–37, Tobin (2014) 320, 326–48, Mulligan (2018) 468–72, Pons (2018) 121.
21
Allen (1990) 139–48, Garrison (2000) 840, Ramsey (2000) 48–52, Hisano (2011) 520, Sucker (2015) 257–58, FentonGlynn (2016) 64–75, Neményi (2005) 10–14, Margaria (2020) 420.
22
Navratyil (2010) 198–211, Gabry (2012) 421–31, Stark (2012) 370, Sucker (2015) 260, Kriari and Valongo (2016) 332–42,
Snyder (2016) 281–82, Fenton-Glynn (2017) 546, Storrow (2018) 43–65, Garayová (2022) 70–80.
23
Bernat (2016) 6–8, Cascão (2016) 153, Bracken (2017) 369–70, Iliadou (2017) 128, Fenton-Glynn (2017) 546–47, Pons
(2018) 121, Sándor (2018) 42–46, Storrow (2018) 40, Ní Shúilleabháin (2019) 105, Margaria (2020) 415, Levy (2022)
125–26.
24
Stark (2012) 370–71, Bromfield and Smith Rotabi (2014) 124, Sándor (2018) 46.
25
According to Forder, ‘[l]egal parentage is established when the law prescribes that a legal filiation link has arisen.’ See
Forder (1997) 126.
26
Stark (2012) 374, Sucker (2015) 262, Bernat (2016) 6, Margaletic, Preloznjak and Simovic (2019) 779–81, Margaria
(2020) 422.
27
Sucker (2015) 262.
28
Cascão (2016) 153–54.
29
Garrison (2000) 883–85, Navratyil (2010) 195, 210, Sucker (2015) 261–62.
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 10/08/23 07:29 PM UTC
5
Hungarian Journal of Legal Studies
an acknowledgement of paternity, or if he is proven to be also the genetic father, his fatherhood
can be established by the court.30 In all cases, adoption is a further option for the intended father
to become the legal father.31
International surrogacy-related cases decided by the ECtHR demonstrate that in the absence
of legal recognition of the intended parents’ parental status, there will be an enduring discrepancy between the social and legal child-parent relationship, the adverse consequences of which
affect both the intended parents and the child.32 As Judge O’Leary aptly noted in her concurring
opinion to the judgment delivered by the ECtHR in the case of A.M. v Norway, ‘as the childparent relationship is a two-way street, refusal of recognition of the intended parent clearly has
consequences for the rights, interests and social reality of the child.’33 Hughes also argues that
[t]he child’s right to privacy is not wholly distinct from the adult’s right to privacy. (…) Thus many
of the issues and questions that are relevant to the adult’s right to privacy will also apply to the
child’s right to privacy. However, (…) the child’s right to privacy raises a number of special issues
that justify examining it separately from that of the adult.34
With this in mind, focusing exclusively on children’s right to respect for their private and family
life, in the following we are going to examine what challenging questions the ECtHR had to face
when interpreting Article 8 of the ECHR in cases related to international surrogacy, what
answers the Court gave to these questions, and based on these answers, what obligations of
the state can be established in relation to ensuring this right. In this way, we are attempting to
justify our hypothesis that some principles have already been crystallized in the case law of the
ECtHR in relation to the right to respect for the private and family life of children born through
international surrogacy, which define the state’s obligations regarding the recognition of the
parent-child relationship between the intended parents and the child.
2. THE LOCUS STANDI OF THE INTENDED PARENTS
The first challenging question is of a preliminary nature as it concerns the compatibility ratione
personae of the application with the Convention.35 This question is whether the intended
parents have standing to bring an application (locus standi) before the ECtHR on behalf of
the child.36 In this regard, the problem arises from the fact that the lack of recognition of the
intended parent’s legal parenthood in the respondent state also means that under national law,
30
Sucker (2015) 261, Bernat (2016) 6.
31
Sucker (2015) 262–65.
32
Margaria (2020) 417.
33
Concurring opinion of Judge O’Leary to the ECtHR’s judgment delivered in the case of A.M. v Norway § 15.
34
Hughes (2012) 456.
35
Incompatibility ratione personae means that the ground of the incompatibility of the application with the Convention
lies in the person of the applicant. See Peters and Altwicker (2018) 9.
36
The lack of locus standi results in the application being incompatible ratione personae with the Convention in the
meaning of Article 35 paragraph 3 (a). See e.g., Lambert and Others v France App no 46043/14 (ECtHR 5 June 2015) §
96–106.
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 10/08/23 07:29 PM UTC
6
Hungarian Journal of Legal Studies
the intended parents do not have the standing to act on behalf of the child, who, however, is
lacking legal capacity to conduct proceedings due to his age.37
Outside the scope of international surrogacy matters, in the case of Scozzari and Giunta v
Italy the ECtHR made general findings regarding the locus standi requirements which are also
instructive from the point of view of our topic. The Court pointed out that ‘the conditions
governing individual applications are not necessarily the same as national criteria relating to
locus standi.’38 The ECtHR expounded that ‘in principle a person who is not entitled under
domestic law to represent another may nevertheless, in certain circumstances, act before the
Court in the name of the other person.’39 The ECtHR cited as an example that even a mother
deprived of her parental rights can act on behalf of her children because ‘her standing as the
natural mother suffices to afford her the necessary power to apply to the Court on the children’s
behalf, too.’40 The ECtHR explained this position by saying that if a conflict occurs over a
child’s interests between the natural parent and the child’s guardian appointed by the national
authorities, ‘there is a danger that some of those interests will never be brought to the Court’s
attention and that the minor will be deprived of effective protection of his rights under the
Convention.’41
Reviewing the international surrogacy-related case law of the ECtHR in the light of the
above, it can be concluded that the Court applied the principles established in the case of
Scozzari and Giunta v Italy. Accordingly, when the intended father was also the genetic father,
both the intended parents and the child were in the position of the applicant, and the complaint
raised by the intended parents on behalf of the child was examined on its merits even though
there was no legally recognized relationship in the respondent state between the intended
parents and the child.42 However, in the case in which the child was not genetically related
to either of the intended parents, the Court considered the application compatible ratione
personae with the ECHR only if it was submitted on the authority of the child’s legal guardian.43
In accordance with this, in the case of Paradiso and Campanelli v. Italy, the Court took the
position that the intended parents did not have the standing to act on behalf of the child and
dismissed the complaints raised on his behalf as incompatible ratione personae on the grounds
that there was no biological tie between the intended parents and the child who was placed
under guardianship and was represented by his guardian in the domestic proceedings, while the
intended parents were not authorised to represent him.44 Nevertheless, it is worth noting that
despite the fact that in the latter case the ECtHR found that the intended parents did not have
locus standi to pursue an application on behalf of the child, it examined the child’s best interests
37
This problem does not arise when the intended parents only claim a violation of their own human rights, as in the
following cases: C. and E. v France § 37; A.M. v Norway § 101, 136; A.L. v France § 34.
38
Scozzari and Giunta v Italy App no 39221/98 and 41963/98 (ECtHR, 13 July 2000) § 139.
39
Scozzari and Giunta v Italy § 138.
40
Scozzari and Giunta v Italy § 138.
41
Scozzari and Giunta v Italy § 138.
42
Mennesson v France § 1; Labassee v France § 1; D. and Others v Belgium § 1; Foulon and Bouvet v France § 1; Laborie v
France § 1, 4; C. and E. v France § 1; D. v France § 1.
43
Valdís Fjölnisdóttir and Others v Iceland § 1, 2.
44
Paradiso and Campanelli v Italy § 85–86, § and Chamber judgment (ECtHR, 27 January 2015) § 48–50.
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 10/08/23 07:29 PM UTC
7
Hungarian Journal of Legal Studies
on the merits of the case, but only from the point of view of a possible violation of the intended
parents’ human rights.45 According to Florescu, Liefard and Bruning, ‘[t]his is illustrative of the
Court’s struggle to incorporate rights of children when children face major obstacles in accessing
courts, including the ECtHR.’46
3. THE INTERFERENCE WITH THE CHILD’S RIGHT TO RESPECT FOR HIS
PRIVATE AND FAMILY LIFE
If the ECtHR finds that the intended parents have locus standi to lodge an application on behalf
of the child, the second challenging question relates to the compatibility ratione materiae47 of
the application with the Convention, namely under what conditions the non-recognition of the
intended parents’ parenthood can be regarded as an interference with the child’s right to respect
for his private or family life.
Regarding private life, according to the case law of the ECtHR, the right to identity is an
integral part of the notion of ‘private life’ which includes not only aspects of a person’s physical
but also social identity.48 The Court also pointed out that ‘respect for private life requires that
everyone should be able to establish details of their identity as [an] individual human being,
which includes the legal parent-child relationship.’49 Therefore ‘an essential aspect of the identity of individuals is at stake where the legal parent-child relationship is concerned.’50 Since the
parent-child relationship is necessarily affected in the absence of recognition of parentage, it can
be concluded that this latter fact shall be interpreted as an interference with the child’s right to
respect for his private life in itself. This conclusion is reflected in the ECtHR’s case law as the
Court consistently regards the mere fact of the lack of recognition as an interference that affects
the child’s private life.51
As for family life, the ECtHR determined that this right presupposes the existence of a
family, which notion concerns not only marriage-based relationships but also de facto family
ties.52 As interpreted by the ECtHR, the existence of a ‘family life’ is ‘essentially a question of fact
depending upon the existence of close personal ties.’53 In applying this test to determine whether
there was an interference with the child’s right to respect for family life, the ECtHR examines the
45
Paradiso and Campanelli v Italy § 193, 208.
46
Florescu, Liefaard and Bruning (2015) 452.
47
Incompatibility ratione materiae means that the ground of the incompatibility of the application with the Convention
lies in the subject of the application. See Peters and Altwicker (2018) 12. The Court examines this question at the
admissibility stage unless ‘there is a particular reason to join this question to the merits.’ See Denisov v Ukraine App no
76639/11 (ECtHR, 25 September 2018) § 93.
48
Labassee v France § 38.
49
Mennesson v France § 96.
50
Mennesson v France § 96.
51
Mennesson v France § 49; Labassee v France § 38; Foulon and Bouvet v France § 55–58; Laborie v France § 29–32;
C. and E. v France § 37; Valdís Fjölnisdóttir and Others v Iceland § 64, 65.; D. v France § 43–44.
52
Paradiso and Campanelli v Italy § 140.
53
Valdís Fjölnisdóttir and Others v Iceland § 56.
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 10/08/23 07:29 PM UTC
8
Hungarian Journal of Legal Studies
concrete reality of the relationship between the interested parties.54 Therefore it typically considers the facts that the intended parents took care of the child continuously and without
interruption from the time of his birth, and they lived together in a manner that did not differ
from ‘family life’ in its habitual sense.55 It can be concluded from this that in examining the
existence of family life, the Court does not require the existence of a genetic connection,56 but
attaches importance to the duration and quality of the personal relationship between the
intended parents and the child.
Based on the above, the case law of the ECtHR shows that the relationship between the
intended parents and the child is an essential aspect of the child’s social identity and thereby of
his private life. In addition, if there is a durable and close personal relationship between the
intended parents and the child, and they function as a family in the habitual sense of the term, it
can be concluded that the child’s family life is also affected by the refusal of the legal recognition
of his family ties.
4. THE LAWFULNESS AND LEGITIMATE AIM OF THE INTERFERENCE
If the interference with the child’s right to respect for his private or family life can be established,
in the next step the ECtHR examines on the merits of the case whether the requirements for
the justification of the interference have been met. In this domain, the Court first deals
with the lawfulness of the interference, and then the existence of its legitimate aim.57 Accordingly, the next challenging question is under what conditions these requirements are fulfilled
when the recognition of the intended parents’ parental status is refused.
According to the case law of the ECtHR, the requirement of lawfulness58 means
that the measures in question should have some basis in domestic law, but also refers to the quality
of the law in question, requiring that it should be accessible to the person concerned and foreseeable
as to its effects. In order for the law to meet the criterion of foreseeability, it must set forth with
sufficient precision the conditions in which a measure may be applied, to enable the persons concerned - if need be, with appropriate advice - to regulate their conduct accordingly.59
Regarding the depth of the examination of lawfulness, the ECtHR’s case law shows a significant
amount of fluctuation,60 but in those cases in which the Court examined this question in detail,
it considered not only the positive law but also its interpretation by the domestic courts, as well
54
Labassee v France § 37.
55
Labassee v France § 37; Valdís Fjölnisdóttir and Others v Iceland § 62.
56
Fenton-Glynn (2017) 558.
57
Mennesson v France § 51–62; Labassee v France § 52–54; C. and E. v France § 37; Valdís Fjölnisdóttir and Others v
Iceland § 76.; D. v France § 41.
58
P. and S. v Poland App no 57375/08 (ECtHR 30 October 2012) § 134.
59
Mennesson v France § 57.
60
In some cases, the Court did not examine this issue in substance, but either noted that the applicants did not dispute
the interference was in accordance with the law (Labassee v France § 52), or simply concluded that it had no doubt that
the interference met the requirement of lawfulness (C. and E. v France § 37.).
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 10/08/23 07:29 PM UTC
9
Hungarian Journal of Legal Studies
as whether the applicants were aware that there was a substantial risk that the domestic courts
would not recognize their parent-child relationship.61
Regarding the legitimate aims of the interference, the ECtHR typically referred to the protection of the rights and freedoms of others (primarily the child and the surrogate mother),62 but
in the Court’s case law we also encounter frequent references to another legitimate aim, namely
the protection of health.63 In light of the previously mentioned fact that surrogacy carries the
risk of the commodification of children and exploitation of women, accepting the protection of
the rights and freedoms of others as a legitimate aim of the interference seems convincing. At
the same time, it is more difficult to see how the legal regulations underlying the refusal to
recognize the parental status of the intended parents serve the protection of health, and the
Court’s reasonings do not provide further guidance in this regard either.
It appears from the case law of the Court that the prevention of disorder and crime can also
serve as a legitimate aim of the interference. However, the reference to this can only be justified
if it can be established that having recourse to surrogacy amounts to a criminal offence under
domestic law.64 Finally, we note that it is surprising that a reference to the protection of morals,
which is also mentioned as a legitimate aim in Article 8 paragraph 2 of the Convention, does not
appear in the Court’s judgments,65 even though they refer to the sensitive moral and ethical
issues raised by surrogacy when examining the necessity of the interference.66
5. NECESSITY IN A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY
The third requirement for justifying the interference is necessity in a democratic society. According to Greer, this ‘is arguably one of the most important clauses in the entire Convention
since, in principle, it gives the Strasbourg organs the widest possible discretion in condoning or
condemning interferences with rights which states seek to justify.’67 In this domain, the question
arises as to what aspects are important in terms of assessing the necessity of the interference.68
As determined by the Court, ‘[t]he notion of necessity implies that the interference corresponds to a pressing social need and, in particular, that it is proportionate to the legitimate aim
pursued.’69 Regarding the question of ‘pressing social need,’ although the Court refers to it as a
criterion of necessity, it does not subject it to a separate investigation in international surrogacy61
Mennesson v France § 58–59; D. v France § 43; Valdís Fjölnisdóttir and Others v Iceland § 64.
62
Mennesson v France § 62; Labassee v France § 54; C. and E. v France § 37; Valdís Fjölnisdóttir and Others v Iceland § 65;
D. v. France § 44.
63
Mennesson v France § 62, Labassee v France § 54; D. v. France § 44.
64
Mennesson v France § 61, Labassee v France § 53.
65
This may be due to the fact pointed out by Ryan, i.e., ‘[o]ften states do not justify their actions by reference to morality,
but rather by reference to health, safety and the protection of rights and freedoms of others.’ See Ryan (2018) 487.
66
Mennesson v France § 77; Labassee v France § 58; Valdís Fjölnisdóttir and Others v Iceland § 69;
67
Greer (1997) 14.
68
It must be noted that the Court did not carry out a detailed examination of all these requirements in every case, but in
some cases simply indicated that there was no reason to conclude otherwise than in the cases of Mennesson v France
and Labassee v France. See Foulon and Bouvet v France § 55–57; Laborie v France § 29–31.
69
Mennesson v France § 50; Labassee v France § 51; C. and E. v France § 38; Valdís Fjölnisdóttir and Others v Iceland § 68.
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 10/08/23 07:29 PM UTC
10
Hungarian Journal of Legal Studies
related cases, but places the focus on the assessment of proportionality.70 When assessing the
latter, two aspects are of decisive importance: the scope of the state’s ‘margin of appreciation’
and the ‘fair balance’ that must be struck between the competing interests of the state and the
applicants.71
As Storrow correctly states, ‘[t]he margin of appreciation grants member states a zone of
discretion that permits them to pursue solutions to human rights issues in different ways.’72
When determining the State’s margin of appreciation in international surrogacy-related cases,
there are conflicting aspects, some of which argue for a wide margin of appreciation, while
others speak for a reduced margin of appreciation available for the state.73
On the one hand, according to the consistent case law of the ECtHR, when a case raises
sensitive moral and ethical issues, the state’s margin of appreciation will be wide.74 The ECtHR
emphasized several times that there is no consensus between the member states of the Council of
Europe on the lawfulness of surrogacy arrangements and the recognition of the legal relationship
between intended parents and children born through international surrogacy.75 According to
the Court,
this lack of consensus reflects the fact that recourse to a surrogacy arrangement raises sensitive
ethical questions. It also confirms that the states must in principle be afforded a wide margin of
appreciation regarding the decision not only whether or not to authorise this method of assisted
reproduction but also whether or not to recognize a legal parent-child relationship between children
legally conceived as a result of a surrogacy arrangement abroad and the intended parents.76
On the other hand, the Court also established that ‘an essential aspect of the identity of
individuals is at stake where the legal parent-child relationship is concerned,’ therefore the
margin of appreciation afforded to the state needs to be reduced.77 In addition, the ECtHR
pointed out that the issues at stake in this context go beyond the question of the children’s
identity as ‘other essential aspects of their private life come into play where the matter concerns
the environment in which they live and develop and the persons responsible for meeting their
needs and ensuring their welfare’, which also supports the reduced margin of appreciation.78
With respect to the requirement of ‘fair balance’, numerous different interests must be
considered.79 Regarding this fact, it must also be taken into account that it is a principle
70
Mennesson v France § 75–100; Labassee v France § 55–80; C. and E. v France § 39–45; Valdís Fjölnisdóttir and Others v
Iceland § 66–76; D. v. France § 45–72.
71
Iliadou (2017) 143, Margaria (2020) 417–19.
72
Storrow (2018) 41–42.
73
Mulligan (2018) 453–56.
74
Mennesson v France § 77.
75
Mennesson v. France § 77, Labassee v France 58.
76
Mennesson v. France § 79.
77
Mennesson v. France § 80; Advisory opinion concerning the recognition in domestic law of a legal parent-child relationship between a child born through a gestational surrogacy arrangement abroad and the intended mother App no P162018-001 (ECtHR 10 April 2019), § 44.
78
Advisory opinion § 45.
79
Hisano (2011) 544.
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 10/08/23 07:29 PM UTC
11
Hungarian Journal of Legal Studies
prevailing in the case law of the ECtHR that the obligations imposed by the ECHR on the
contracting states may be interpreted in the light of the relevant international treaties applicable
to the particular sphere.80 Accordingly, in cases concerning the human rights of children, the
Court interprets the provisions of the ECHR in the light of the United Nations Convention on
the Rights of the Child (‘CRC’), and requires the contracting states to aspire to the standards set
out in the CRC.81 In this area, the most relevant provision of the CRC stipulates that in ‘all
actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions,
courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall
be a primary consideration.’82 Therefore, when examining whether a fair balance has been
struck by the national authorities between the competing interests, it is essential to consider
the child’s best interests which are paramount whenever the situation of a child is at issue83 (the
‘paramountcy’ principle84).
Regarding the child’s best interests, the ECtHR explained that these must be assessed primarily in concreto rather than in abstracto.85 The Court also established that the child’s best
interests ‘also entail the legal identification of the persons responsible for raising him or her,
meeting his or her needs, and ensuring his or her welfare, as well as the possibility for the
children to live and develop in a stable environment.’86 Besides, in the absence of the recognition
of the legal parent-child relationship, the identity of the child is undermined and he is in a state
of legal uncertainty under domestic law.87 However, the Court also pointed out that in the
context of surrogacy, the child’s best interests ‘include other fundamental components that do
not necessarily weigh in favour of recognition of a legal parent-child relationship.’88 The latter
include, e.g., the ‘protection against the risk of abuse which surrogacy arrangements entail (…)
and the possibility of knowing one’s origins.’89
When assessing the necessity of the intervention, the ECtHR took all these aspects into
account in its decisions, from which the following principles can be outlined in relation to
the obligations of the state regarding the recognition of the parent-child relationship between
the intended parents and the child.
Firstly, the child’s right to respect for his private life requires that domestic law provide a
possibility of recognition of the legal relationship between the child and the intended father if he
is also the biological father.90
80
E.g., Demir and Baykara v Turkey App no 34503/97 (ECtHR 12 November 2008) § 69.
81
E.g., Sahin v Germany App no 30943/96 (ECtHR 8 July 2003) § 39.
82
Article 3 paragraph 1 of the CRC.
83
Mennesson v France § 81; Labassee v France § 60; Advisory opinion § 38.
84
Ní Shúilleabháin (2019) 106.
85
Advisory opinion § 52.
86
Advisory opinion § 42.
87
Mennesson v France § 96.
88
Advisory opinion § 41.
89
Advisory opinion § 41.
90
Mennesson v France § 99–101; Labassee v France § 78–80; Foulon and Bouvet v France § 55–58; Laborie v France § 29–32;
Advisory opinion § 35.
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 10/08/23 07:29 PM UTC
12
Hungarian Journal of Legal Studies
Secondly, if the child’s parent-child relationship with the intended and at the same time
biological father has been recognised in domestic law, the child’s right to respect for his private
life also ‘requires that domestic law provide a possibility of recognition of a legal parent-child
relationship with the intended mother, designated in the birth certificate legally established
abroad as the “legal mother”.’91 This principle applies with even greater force if the child was
conceived using the ovum of the intended mother.92
Thirdly, the child’s right to respect for his private life does not require a specific means of
recognition of the legal relationship between him and the intended mother. This right of the
child does not require that recognition be made by registering the data of a birth certificate
established abroad; other means, such as adoption by the intended mother may also be acceptable.93 The choice of means falls within the states’ margin of appreciation with the limitation
that the chosen mechanism must be prompt, effective and in accordance with the child’s best
interests, i.e. it cannot impose an undue burden on the child concerned.94 The recognition must
happen at the latest when the parent-child relationship has become a practical reality, which
must be assessed by the national authorities in light of the concrete circumstances of the case.95
Consequently, the refusal of the request for the transcription of the foreign birth certificate does
not amount to a violation of the child’s right to respect for private life if the possibility of an
adoption procedure that meets these requirements is available.96
Fourthly, the refusal of the recognition of the parent-child relationship does not violate the
child’s right to respect for his family life if no actual and practical obstacles exist in the
enjoyment of family life between the child and the intended parents that have been impossible
to overcome, and there is no risk that the child and the intended parents will be separated by the
authorities on account of their status under domestic law.97 Absence of this risk is indicated if
the authorities do not prevent the child from living with the intended parents,98 or the state
takes steps to regularise and secure the bond between the child and the intended parents.99
6. SUMMARY
According to the case law of the ECtHR, the existence of a genetic relationship between the
intended father and the child born through international surrogacy is of fundamental importance from the point of view of the child’s right for respect of his private and family life, when
91
Advisory opinion § 46.
92
Advisory opinion § 47; D. v France § 53.
93
Advisory opinion § 50, 53; C. and E. v France § 40–44; D. v France § 58.
94
Advisory opinion § 51, 54–55; C. and E. v France § 43.
95
Advisory opinion § 52.
96
D. v France § 62–63, 70–71.
97
Mennesson v France § 87–95; Labassee v France § 66–74; Foulon and Bouvet v France § 55–58; Laborie v France § 29–32;
Valdís Fjölnisdóttir and Others v Iceland § 71–75.
98
Mennesson v France § 93; Labassee v France § 72.
99
Valdís Fjölnisdóttir and Others v Iceland § 75.
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 10/08/23 07:29 PM UTC
13
Hungarian Journal of Legal Studies
the legal child-parent relationship is not recognized by the respondent state.100 In the absence of
a genetic link, the state is not obliged to recognize the intended father as the legal father of the
child, and if there is no legal relationship between the intended father and the child, the state has
no obligation to recognize the legal motherhood of the intended mother either.
This shows that the Court still perceives parenthood as basically a genetic, rather than a
social or functional status,101 insofar as it only requires the recognition of the legal parenthood
of the intended father to be in a genetic relationship with the child. In comparison, in the
Court’s interpretation, the intended mother’s legal motherhood is essentially a ‘derivative of
fatherhood,’102 because she can only become legal mother if the intended father’s legal paternity
has been established. This also means that the ECtHR’s case law so far has not defined the
standards of the legal protection for all groups of children born through international surrogacy,
and it is especially those children who are not genetically related to either intended parent who
are in a precarious situation regarding their family status.
In our opinion, this position of the Court, which reflects a traditional understanding of
parenthood, requires further development in the direction of a position that perceives the concept
of family primarily as a social community rather than a genetic one. It is difficult to put forward
plausible arguments why the level of human rights protection provided by the ECtHR to children
born through international surrogacy should differ depending on whether the intended father is
also a genetic parent or not. Instead, it would be much more justified to focus exclusively on
whether the legal recognition of the de facto family relationship with the intended parents would
serve the best interests of the child, and in the case of an affirmative answer, the refusal of the
legal recognition should without exception be considered a violation of the ECHR.
DISCLOSURE
The author is a judge at the District Court of Keszthely.
LITERATURE
Alghrani, A., ʻSurrogacy: “A Cautionary Tale”’ (2012) 20 Medical Law Review 631–41.
Allen, A. L., ‘Surrogacy, Slavery, and the Ownership of Life’ (1990) 13 Harvard Journal of Law & Public
Policy 139–49.
Arenstein, R. D., ‘Is Surrogacy Against Public Policy? The Answer Is Yes’ (1988) 18 Seton Hall Law Review
831–38.
Balázs, R., ‘Protection of Minors and the European Court of Human Rights’ in Peralta Carrasco, M. (ed),
Derecho de familia: nuevos retos y realidades. Estudios jurídicos de aproximación del Derecho Latinamericano y Europeo (Dykinson 2016) 37–43.
100
Margaletic, Preloznjak and Simovic (2019) 792.
101
In comparison, Garrison already took the position in 2000 that ‘parenthood itself is incwreasingly seen as a functional
status, rather than one derived from biology or legal entitlement.’ See Garrison (2000) 893.
102
Margaria (2020) 424.
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 10/08/23 07:29 PM UTC
14
Hungarian Journal of Legal Studies
Bernat, A., ʻLeihmutterschaftstourismus und seine Folgen – eine österreichische Zwischenbilanz’ (2016) 24
Jahrbuch für Recht und Ethik 3–30.
Besson, S., ‘Enforcing the Child’s Right to Know Her Origins: Contrasting Approaches Under the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the European Convention on Human Rights’ (2007) 21 International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family 137–59.
Bracken, L., ʻAssessing the Best Interests of the Child in Cases of Cross-Border Surrogacy: Inconsistency in
the Strasbourg Approach?’ (2017) 39 Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 368–79.
Bromfield, N. F. and Smith Rotabi, K., ‘Global Surrogacy, Exploitation, Human Rights and International
Private Law: A Pragmatic Stance and Policy Recommendations’ (2014) 1 Global Social Welfare 123–35.
Cascão, R., ‘The Challenges of International Commercial Surrogacy: From Paternalism towards Realism?
(2016) 35 Medicine and Law 151–64.
Fenton-Glynn, C., ‘International Surrogacy Before the European Court of Human Rights’ (2017) 13 Journal
of Private International Law 546–67.
Fenton-Glynn, C., ʻOutsourcing Ethical Dilemmas: Regulating International Surrogacy Arrangements’
(2016) 24 Medical Law Review 59–75.
Florescu, S., Liefaard, T. and Bruning, M., ‘Children’s Rights and the European Convention on Human
Rights’ (2015) 40 NJCM-Bulletin 451–53.
Forder, C., ‘Article 8 ECHR: The Utter Limits of “Familiy Life” and the Law of Parenthood’ (1997) 4
Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 125–42.
Fortin, J., ʻAccomodating Children’s Rights in a Post Human Rights Act Era’ (2006) 69 The Modern Law
Review 299–326.
Gabry, L. I., ʻProcreating Without Pregnancy: Surrogacy and the Need for a Comprehensive Regulatory
Scheme’ (2012) 45 Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems 415–50.
Garayová, L., ‘Surrogate motherhood – The European Landscape’ in Szilágyi, J. E. (ed), Law, Identity and
Values (Ferenc Mádl Institute of Comparative Law, CEA Publishing 2022) 65–83.
Garrison, M., ‘Law Making for Baby Making: An Interpretive Approach to the Determination of Legal
Parenthood’ (2000) 113 Harvard Law Review 835–923.
Gostin, L. O., ʻA Civil Liberties Analysis of Surrogacy Arrangements’ (2001) 17 Journal of Contemporary
Health Law and Policy 432–54.
Greer, S., The Exceptions to Articles 8 to 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Council of
Europe Publishing 1997).
Gruenbaum, D., ʻForeign Surrogate Motherhood: Mater Semper Certa Erat’ (2012) 60 American Journal of
Comparative Law 475–505.
Hevia, M., ʻSurrogacy, Privacy and The American Convention on Human Rights’ (2018) 5 Journal of Law
and Biosciences 375–97.
Hisano, E. Y., ʻGestational Surrogacy Maternity Disputes: Refocusing on the Child’ (2011) 15 Lewis & Clark
Law Review 526–28.
Horsey, K., ‘Challenging Presumptions: Legal Parenthood and Surrogacy Arrangements’ (2010) 22 Child
and Family Law Quarterly 449–74.
Hughes, K., ’The Child’s Right to Privacy and Article 8 European Convention on Human Rights’ in
Freeman, M. (ed), Law and Childhood Studies (Oxford University Press 2012) 456–86.
Iliadou, M., ʻSurrogacy and Positive Obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights’ (2017)
62 Revista Española de Derecho Europeo 127–60.
Jardí, M. S., ‘L’intérêt supérieur de l’enfant dans les arrêts de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme
concernant les familles alternatives’ (2015) 82 Rivista di Studi Politici Internazionali 103–19.
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 10/08/23 07:29 PM UTC
Hungarian Journal of Legal Studies
15
Kilkelly, U., ʻProtecting Children’s Rights under the ECHR: the Role of Positive Obligations’ (2010) 61
Northern Ireland Law Quarterly 245–61.
Kilkelly, U., ʻThe Best of Both Worlds for Children’s Rights? Interpreting the European Convention on
Human Rights in the Light of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child’ (2001) 23 Human Rights
Quarterly 308–26.
Kriari, I. and Valongo, A., ʽInternational Issues Regarding Surrogacy’ (2016) 2 Italian Law Journal 331–54.
Levy, M., ‘Surrogacy and Parenthood: A European Saga of Genetic Essentialism and Gender Discrimination’ (2022) 29 Michigan Journal of Gender & Law 121–78.
Preloznjak, B. and Simovic, I., ‘Presumption of Motherhood on Crossland of Surrogacy
Margaletic, A. C.,
Arrangements in EU’ in Duic, D. and Petraševic, T. (eds), EU and Member States – Legal and Economic
Issues (Jusip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek 2019) 778–802.
Margaria, A., ʻParenthood and Cross-Border Surrogacy: What is “New?” The ECtHR’s First Advisory
Opinion’ (2020) 28 Medical Law Review 412–25.
Monéger, F., ‘La gestation pour autrui’ (2010) 62 Revue internationale de droit comparé 233–44.
Monteiro, P., ‘A Child Can Never Be Illegitimate’ (2020) 7 International Journal of Research and Analytical
Reviews 373–82.
Mulligan, A., ʻIdentity Rights and Sensitive Ethical Questions: The European Convention on Human Rights
and the Regulation of Surrogacy Arrangements’ (2018) 26 Medical Law Review 449–75.
Navratyil, Z., ʻAz anyaság útvesztői. A dajkaanyaság és béranyaság rejtelmei a jogi szabályozásban, különös
tekintettel az Egyesült Államokra’ (The mazes of motherhood. The mysteries of surrogacy and surrogacy in the law, with special reference to the United States) (2010) 6 Iustum Aequum Salutare 189–226.
Navratyil, Z., ʻBéranyaság határok nélkül. Különös tekintettel az Emberi Jogok Európai Bíróságának döntéseire’ (Motherhood without borders. With particular reference to the decisions of the European Court
of Human Rights) (2017) 13 Iustum Aequum Salutare 101–14.
Neményi, E., ’Dajkaanyaság’ (Nannymotherhood) (2005) 14 Család Gyermek Ifjúság 6–14.
Ní Shúilleabháin, M., ’Surrogacy, System Shopping, and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human
Rights’ (2019) 33 International Journal of Law, Policy and The Family 104–22.
Orfali, K. and Chiappori, P. A., ʻTransnational Gestational Surrogacy: Exploitative or Empowering?’ (2014)
14 The American Journal of Bioethics 33–4.
Peters, A. and Altwicker, T., ‘Die Verfahren beim EGMR’ (Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public
Law and International Law 2018).
Pol, R., ʻProposing an International Instrument to Address Issues Arising out of International Surrogacy
Arrangements’ (2018) Georgetown Journal of International Law 1311–12.
Pons, C., ʻLa gestation pour autrui: l’influence des droits fondamentaux européens sur le droit international
privé’ (2018) 31 Revue québécoise de droit international 119–42.
Ramsey, J., ‘Regulating Surrogacy – A Contravention of Human Rights’ (2000) 45 Medical Law International 45–64.
Ryan, C., ‘Europe’s Moral Margin: Parental Aspirations and the European Court of Human Rights’ (2018)
56 Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 467–529.
Sándor, J., ‘Transnational Surrogacy: An Overview of Legal and Ethical Issues’ in Mitra, S. and others (eds),
Cross-Cultural Comparisons on Surrogacy and Egg Donation (Palgrave Macmillan 2018) 35–55.
Snyder, S. H., ʻReproductive Surrogacy in the United States of America. Trajectories and Trends’ in
Sills, E. S. (ed), Handbook of Gestational Surrogacy (Cambridge University Press 2016) 276–86.
Stark, B., ‘Transnational Surrogacy and International Human Rights Law’ (2012) 18 ILSA Journal of
International & Comparative Law 369–86.
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 10/08/23 07:29 PM UTC
16
Hungarian Journal of Legal Studies
Steinbock, B., ‘Defining Parenthood’ (2005) 13 The International Journal of Children’s Rights 287–310.
Storrow, R. F., ʻInternational Surrogacy in the European Court of Human Rights’ (2018) 43 North Carolina
Journal of International Law and Commercial Regulation 38–68.
Sucker, S., ʻTo Recognize or Not Recognize? That Is the Question! Motherhood in Cross-Border Surrogacy
Cases’ (2015) 17 European Journal of Law Reform 257–70.
Tesfaye, M. G., ‘What makes a Parent? Challenging the Importance of a Genetic Link for Legal Parenthood
in International Surrogacy Arrangements’ (2022) 36 International Journal of Law, Policy and the
Family 1–20.
Tobin, J., ‘To Prohibit or Permit: What is the (Human) Rights Response to the Practice of International
Commercial Surrogacy’ (2014) 63 The International and Comparative Law Quarterly 317–52.
Vandenhole, W., ‘Distinctive characteristics of children’s human rights law’ in Brems, E., Desmet, E. and
Vandenhole, W. (eds), Children’s Rights Law in the Global Human Rights Landscape. Isolation, Inspiration, Integration? (Routledge 2017) 21–36.
Weiss, A., ʻMennesson v France and Advisory Opinion Concerning the Recognition in Domestic Law of a
Legal Parent-Child Relationship Between a Child Born through a Gestational Surrogacy Arrangement
Abroad and the Intended Mother’ (2019) 1 Statelessness & Citizenship Review 343–49.
Open Access statement. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited, a link to the CC License is provided, and changes
– if any – are indicated. (SID_1)
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 10/08/23 07:29 PM UTC