{"id":530,"date":"2016-01-31T09:39:39","date_gmt":"2016-01-31T08:39:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ceje.meig.ch\/?post_type=publication&#038;p=530"},"modified":"2025-09-10T11:20:05","modified_gmt":"2025-09-10T09:20:05","slug":"surrogacy-from-the-luxembourg-and-strasbourg-perspectives-divergence-convergence-and-the-chance-for-a-future-dialogue","status":"publish","type":"publication","link":"https:\/\/ceje.meig.ch\/en\/publication\/surrogacy-from-the-luxembourg-and-strasbourg-perspectives-divergence-convergence-and-the-chance-for-a-future-dialogue\/","title":{"rendered":"Surrogacy from the Luxembourg and Strasbourg perspectives: divergence, convergence and the chance for a future dialogue."},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>Abstract<\/strong><\/p>\n<p class=\"01bCorpsdetexte\">Surrogacy, which raises several legal and ethical questions, imposes a delicate balancing of the different rights involved: the rights of children born from surrogacy, the rights of surrogate mothers, the rights of children waiting for adoption and the rights of intended parents.<\/p>\n<p class=\"01bCorpsdetexte\">The situation becomes more complicated when it comes to cross border surrogacy, which involves serious issues of private international law relating to the recognition of foreign birth certificates or judgements, the choice of the law in establishing or contesting parentage, the question of jurisdiction and the role of the public order.<\/p>\n<p class=\"01bCorpsdetexte\">European countries have taken different approaches: in some countries surrogacy is legal, in others it is prohibited or simply ignored.<\/p>\n<p class=\"01bCorpsdetexte\">The Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights \u00a0both have adjudicated cases on cross border surrogacy. On 18 March 2014, two judgments came down from Luxembourg,\u00a0\u00a0<em>C.D.<\/em>\u00a0and\u00a0<em>Z.<\/em>\u00a0A few months later, Strasbourg delivered three judgements:\u00a0<em>Mennesson v. France<\/em>,\u00a0<em>Labasse<\/em>\u00a0<em>v. France<\/em>\u00a0and\u00a0<em>Paradiso and Campanelli<\/em>\u00a0<em>v. Italy<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p class=\"01bCorpsdetexte\">The two European Courts seem to take quite different approaches: while the Luxembourg Court has maintained strict adherence to the question at issue and the literal interpretation of the European legal instruments invoked, the Strasbourg Court has relied on the best interests of the child principle and on an evolutionary interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights.<\/p>\n<p class=\"01bCorpsdetexte\">The present paper asks whether there is a current dialogue between the European courts, like it was developed in the past in the field of fundamental rights, and if it may be developed in future, in order to reach a common standard of protection of the fundamental rights involved and to develop a system of shared principles and values which may be used as a point of reference for national judges and legislators as well as in the eventual drafting of international conventions on surrogacy.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p class=\"01bCorpsdetexte\"><strong>Extrait<\/strong><\/p>\n<p class=\"01bCorpsdetexte\">La maternit\u00e9 de substitution, qui soul\u00e8ve plusieurs questions juridiques et \u00e9thiques, impose un \u00e9quilibre d\u00e9licat entre les diff\u00e9rents droits impliqu\u00e9s: les droits des enfants n\u00e9s de m\u00e8res porteuses, les droits des m\u00e8res porteuses, les droits des enfants en attente d&#8217;adoption et les droits des parents d\u2019intention.<\/p>\n<p class=\"01bCorpsdetexte\">La situation devient plus compliqu\u00e9e en cas de maternit\u00e9 de substitution transfrontali\u00e8re, qui implique de graves questions de droit international priv\u00e9 relatives \u00e0 la reconnaissance \u00e0 l&#8217;\u00e9tranger des certificats de naissance ou des jugements, le choix de la loi dans l&#8217;\u00e9tablissement, la contestation de filiation, la question de la comp\u00e9tence aussi bien que le r\u00f4le de l&#8217;ordre public.<\/p>\n<p class=\"01bCorpsdetexte\">Les pays europ\u00e9ens ont adopt\u00e9 des approches diff\u00e9rentes: dans certains pays, la maternit\u00e9 de substitution est l\u00e9gal; dans d&#8217;autres, il est interdit ou simplement ignor\u00e9e.<\/p>\n<p class=\"01bCorpsdetexte\">La Cour de justice de l&#8217;Union europ\u00e9enne et la Cour europ\u00e9enne des droits de l&#8217;homme se sont prononc\u00e9s r\u00e9cemment sur la maternit\u00e9 de substitution cas transfrontaliers. Le 18 Mars 2014, deux jugements ont \u00e9t\u00e9 prononc\u00e9s par Luxembourg,\u00a0<em>C.D.<\/em>\u00a0et\u00a0<em>Z.<\/em>\u00a0Quelques mois plus tard, Strasbourg a rendu trois arr\u00eats:\u00a0<em>Mennesson c. France<\/em>,\u00a0<em>Labasse c. France<\/em>, et\u00a0<em>Paradiso et Campanelli c. Italie<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p class=\"01bCorpsdetexte\">Les deux Cours europ\u00e9ennes semblent avoir adopt\u00e9es des approches tr\u00e8s diff\u00e9rentes: alors que la Cour de Luxembourg a maintenu le strict respect de la question en cause et l&#8217;interpr\u00e9tation litt\u00e9rale des instruments juridiques europ\u00e9ens invoqu\u00e9s, la Cour de Strasbourg s&#8217;est appuy\u00e9 sur le meilleur int\u00e9r\u00eat de l&#8217;enfant aussi bien que sur une interpr\u00e9tation \u00e9volutive de la Convention europ\u00e9enne des droits de l&#8217;homme.<\/p>\n<p class=\"01bCorpsdetexte\">Le pr\u00e9sent document demande s\u2019il y a un dialogue actuel, comme il a \u00e9t\u00e9 d\u00e9velopp\u00e9 dans le pass\u00e9, dans le contexte des droits fondamentaux, et s\u2019il pourra \u00eatre d\u00e9velopp\u00e9 pour le future pour atteindre un niveau commun de protection des droits fondamentaux en cause et de d\u00e9velopper un syst\u00e8me de principes et de valeurs partag\u00e9es qui pourra \u00eatre utilis\u00e9 comme un point de r\u00e9f\u00e9rence pour les juges nationaux et les l\u00e9gislateurs ainsi que dans la r\u00e9daction de conventions internationales sur la maternit\u00e9 de substitution.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><em><a title=\"Anro.pdf\" href=\"https:\/\/ceje.meig.ch\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/Geneva_JMWP_09-Anro.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Acc\u00e8s au texte &#8211; Access to full text<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"template":"","publication_tax":[47],"class_list":["post-530","publication","type-publication","status-publish","hentry","publication_tax-working-paper"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ceje.meig.ch\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publication\/530","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ceje.meig.ch\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publication"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ceje.meig.ch\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/publication"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/ceje.meig.ch\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publication\/530\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":533,"href":"https:\/\/ceje.meig.ch\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publication\/530\/revisions\/533"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ceje.meig.ch\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=530"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"publication_tax","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ceje.meig.ch\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publication_tax?post=530"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}