• A
  • A
  • A
  • ABC
  • ABC
  • ABC
  • А
  • А
  • А
  • А
  • А
Regular version of the site
  • HSE University
  • Publications of HSE
  • Articles
  • Проблемы суррогатного материнства в формате «суррогатного права»: комментарий к консультативному заключению ЕСПЧ от 10 апреля 2019 года

Article

Проблемы суррогатного материнства в формате «суррогатного права»: комментарий к консультативному заключению ЕСПЧ от 10 апреля 2019 года

Международное правосудие. 2019. № 3(31). С. 45-58.

On April 10, 2019, the European Court of Human Rights delivered its first advisory opinion under Protocol No. 16 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The opinion was adopted upon the request of the French Court of Cassation and regarded as yet another attempt to solve the problem of ensuring that a right to respect for private life of children born through transnational surrogacy agreements is secured. The European Court of Human Rights stated that Article 8 of the Convention requires that domestic law provide a possibility of recognition of a legal parent-child relationship between a child and the intended mother, even when they do not share any biological connection. Given the requirements of the child’s best interests and the reduced margin of appreciation of the state, the French government is expected to provide a prompt and effective procedure enabling that relationship to be recognised. The article analyzes both substantial and formal aspects of the advisory opinion. Ultimately, the author aims at defining the role that this ruling might play in developing a civilized approach towards international surrogacy. Additionally, we attempt to evaluate the potential of the new format of advisory opinions for strengthening the horizontal cooperation between the ECHR and national courts and overall advancement of fundamental rights and freedoms in Europe. The article comprises two main parts: one is devoted to the systemic analysis of the arguments substantiating the Court’s findings, the other presents a reflection upon the first instance of applying the new procedure in light of the Protocol’s aims and aspirations. In the end, the author suggests that for those countries that ban surrogacy, the advisory opinion signals that such prohibition is becoming meaningless taking into consideration the evolving interpretation of Article 8 of the Convention. Specifically, the doctrine of a child’s best interests does not allow the states to disregard the legal effects of surrogacy agreements implemented abroad. The nonbinding nature of this rigid opinion incentivizes member states to engage in a fruitful dialogue with the ECHR and eventually reach a consensus on problematic issues of surrogacy. The procedure may also reinforce implementation of the Convention in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity.