A Jurisprudential Conclusion of New Criteria Regarding the Recognition of the Existence of Family Life and Relationships between Parents and Children Resulting from Surrogacy
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18662/lumenlaw/12.1/90Keywords:
surrogacy, right to private life, right to family life, ECHR jurisprudence, human rightsAbstract
Article 8, paragraph 1 of the European Convention enshrines the right to respect for private life, the right to respect for family life, home and correspondence. As it is always seeking to provide solutions to new social realities, the ECHR created an evolutionary interpretation of the notion of private life that also included (in addition to the rights to the person's physical and mental identity, marital status, health and so on) aspects regarding the abortion, the homosexuality and the trans-sexuality, as well as those related to the impact of technical progress (the interception of telephone conversations, the access to databases and so forth). Also through the jurisprudence, the content of the right expanded, leading to the recognition of the right to one's own image and the right to a healthy environment.
References
Asch, A. (1995). Parenthood and embodiment: Reflections on biology, intentionality and autonomy. Graven Images, 2.
Bîrsan, C. (2010). Convenția Europeană a Drepturilor Omului. Comentariu pe articole [European Convention on Human Rights, Commentary on Articles], 2nd ed. Editura C.H. Beck.
Brodeală, E., & Spiess, M. H. (2022). Surrogacy and same-sex parenthood before the European Court of Human Rights: Reflections in light of cases against Switzerland. Swiss Review of International and European Law, 3. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361024422_Surrogacy_and_Same-Sex_Parenthood_Before_the_European_Court_of_Human_Rights_Reflections_in_Light_of_Cases_Against_Switzerland
De Sousa, G. A. S. (2022). Ainda a gestação de substituição na jurisprudência do Tribunal Europeu dos Direitos Humanos [About surrogacy gestation of substitution in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights]. Cuadernos De Derecho Transnacional, 14(2), pp. 1234-1240. https://doi.org/10.20318/cdt.2022.7245
European Court of Human Rights. (1979). Marckx v. Belgium. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-57534%22]}
European Court of Human Rights. (1989). Chappell v. United Kingdom. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/rus/#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-57459%22]}
European Court of Human Rights. (1992). Niemletz v. Germany. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-57887%22]}
European Court of Human Rights. (1994). Keegan v. United Kingdom. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/docx/?library=ECHR&id=001-76453&filename=CASE%20OF%20KEEGAN%20v.%20THE%20UNITED%20KINGDOM.docx&logEvent=False
European Court of Human Rights. (1997). Lazzaro v. Italy. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/pdf/?library=ECHR&id=001-87715&filename=DI%20LAZZARO%20v.%20ITALY.pdf
European Court of Human Rights. (1997). X, Y, Z v. United Kingdom. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#{%22tabview%22:[%22document%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-58032%22]}
European Court of Human Rights. (1999). Smith and Grady v. United Kingdom. https://privacylibrary.ccgnlud.org/case/smith-and-grady-vs-the-united-kingdom
European Court of Human Rights. (2003). Peck v. United Kingdom. https://www.zmogausteisiugidas.lt/en/case-law/peck-v-the-united-kingdom#:~:text=Court's%20ruling,the%20disclosure%20of%20the%20footage
European Court of Human Rights. (2007). Evans v. United Kingdom. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng-press#{%22itemid%22:[%22003-1971098-2073178%22]}
European Court of Human Rights. (2010). Schalk and Kopf v. Austria. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#{%22itemid%22:[%22002-912%22]}
European Court of Human Rights. (2011). Labassee v. France. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-145180*%22]}
European Court of Human Rights. (2011). Mennesson v. France. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-145179*%22]}
European Court of Human Rights. (2015). Oliari and others v. Italy. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#{%22itemid%22:[%22002-10668%22]}
Falasco, J. R. (2005). Frozen embryos and gamete providers’ rights: A suggested model for embryo disposition. Jurimetrics, 45(3), pp. 273–300. http://www.jstor.org/stable/29762898
Garrison, M. (2000). Law making for baby making: An interpretive approach to the determination of legal parentage. Harvard Law Review, 113, 835-923. https://doi.org/10.2307/1342435
Lawrence, C. C. (2002). Procreative liberty and the preembryo problem: Developing a medical and legal framework to settle the disposition of frozen preembryos. Case Western Reserve Law Review, 52(3), pp. 721-751. https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1452&context=caselrev
Luo, Y. (2022). Human rights and subjectivity in cross-border surrogacy - understanding the role of surrogacy facilitators. Deakin University. https://researchrepository.rmit.edu.au/view/pdfCoverPage?instCode=61RMIT_INST&filePid=13301650370001341&download=true
Margenaud, J. P. (1999). La Cour Europeenne des droits de l’homme renouvellee [The European Court of Human Rights renewed]. Chronique Dalloz.
Organization of African Unity. (1990). African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child. http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/africa/afchild.htm
Overall, C. (1990). Selective termination of pregnancy and women's reproductive autonomy. The Hastings Center Report, 20(3), pp. 6-11. https://doi.org/10.2307/3563154
Petralia, S. R. (2022). Resolving disputes over excess frozen embryos through the confines of property and contract law. Journal of Law and Health, 17(2), pp. 103-136. https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1134&context=jlh
Roberts, J. C. (2002). Customizing conception: a survey of preimplantation genetic diagnosis and the resulting social, ethical, and legal dilemmas. Duke Law & Technology Review, E1. https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1053&context=dltr
Ryan, M. A. (1990). The argument for unlimited procreative liberty: A feminist critique. The Hastings Center Report, 20(4), pp. 6-12. https://doi.org/10.2307/3562759
US Supreme Court. (1965). Griswold vs. Connecticut. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/381/479/
US Supreme Court. (1972). Eisenstadt vs. Baird. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/405/438/
Washenfelder, C. (2003). Regulating a revolution: The extent of reproductive rights in Canada. Health Law Review, 12(2), pp. 44-52. https://ca.vlex.com/vid/regulating-revolution-extent-reproductive-53254820
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 The Authors & LUMEN Publishing House
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant this journal right of first publication, with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work, with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g. post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g. in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as an earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
LUMEN Law Journal has an Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs
CC BY-NC-ND
