Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 24.03.2022 - 30254/18 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
A.M. v. NORWAY
No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life) (englisch)
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
A.M. v. NORWAY
Wird zitiert von ... (2) Neu Zitiert selbst (14)
- EGMR, 16.07.2020 - 11288/18
D c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.03.2022 - 30254/18
In this respect, the Court notes that in its case-law relating to gestational surrogacy, it has generally approached the rights under Article 8 of the Convention of children born out of surrogacy arrangements from the perspective of the "private life" limb of that article (see, for example, D v. France, no. 11288/18, § 41, 16 July 2020) as well as finding that the legal position of the intended parents will, depending on the facts of a given case, principally concern matters relating to "private life" (see, mutatis mutandis, Paradiso and Campanelli, cited above, § 163).It is considered that expecting an intended mother to initiate adoption proceedings in order to be recognised as the legal mother would not impose an excessive burden on children born through a gestational surrogacy (C. and E. v. France (déc.), no 1462/18 and no 17348/18, § 43, 19 October 2019; see, however, D. v. France, no 11288/18, 16 July 2020, which involved a genetic mother and therefore one who, like the father, possessed a biological link to the child).
- EGMR, 26.06.2014 - 65941/11
LABASSEE c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.03.2022 - 30254/18
This had been the issue in the Court's cases of Mennesson v. France (no. 65192/11, ECHR 2014 (extracts)) and Labassee v. France (no. 65941/11, 26 June 2014).In cases where what was at issue are the rights of a child born of a surrogacy arrangement, the Court has made clear that the wide margin of appreciation enjoyed by States in relation to the regulation of surrogacy and the recognition of child-parent relationships, narrows when it comes to assessing alleged interferences with a child's Article 8 rights caused by the lack of formal recognition of his or her family ties (Mennesson v. France, cited above; Labassee v. France, no 65941/11, 26 June 2014; Foulon and Bouvet v. France, no 9063/14 and no 10410/14, 21 July 2016; Advisory Opinion No. P16-2018-001, cited above).
- EGMR, 18.05.2021 - 71552/17
VALDÍS FJÖLNISDÓTTIR AND OTHERS v. ICELAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.03.2022 - 30254/18
It was not an intervention by the respondent State that had brought to an end the applicant's relationship with X (see, mutatis mutandis, Valdís Fjölnisdóttir and Others v. Iceland, no. 71552/17, §§ 71 and 76, 18 May 2021) and the Court observes that the Borgarting High Court carried out a closer examination of whether any rights belonging to the applicant under the Convention required that the domestic legislation not be applied to the particular circumstances of the applicant's case.It follows implicitly from the present judgment (§ 111) and explicitly from the judgment in Valdís Fjölnisdóttir v. Iceland (no 71552/17, §§ 56-62, 18 May 2021) that the family life limb of Article 8 might also be engaged in certain circumstances.
- EGMR, 13.06.1979 - 6833/74
MARCKX v. BELGIUM
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.03.2022 - 30254/18
Instead, I proposed a complementary assessment of the case under the family life aspect as this case also concerns the applicant's interest in developing family relationships (see Marckx v. Belgium, 13 June 1979, § 31, Series A no. 31). - EGMR, 22.01.2008 - 43546/02
E.B. v. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.03.2022 - 30254/18
In that regard, the Court has found violations of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention where a partner in an unmarried same-sex couple was not allowed to adopt the child of her girlfriend without severing their legal ties (X and Others v. Austria [GC], no. 19010/07, ECHR 2013), where a homosexual man was prevented from having parental authority over his daughter on account of his sexual orientation (Salgueiro da Silva Mouta v. Portugal, no. 33290/96, ECHR 1999-IX) or where a lesbian woman was prevented from adopting a child (E.B. v. France [GC], no. 43546/02, 22 January 2008). - EGMR, 26.05.1994 - 16969/90
KEEGAN v. IRELAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.03.2022 - 30254/18
For the Court to endorse the existence of such a unilateral right to adopt under Article 8 would fly in the face of well-established case-law protecting parents and children from non-consensual or unilateral adoption procedures which break de facto and de jure child-parent bonds (see, for example, on the need for consent in adoption proceedings, Keegan v. Ireland, no 16969/90, 26 May 2004). - EGMR, 18.12.1986 - 9697/82
JOHNSTON AND OTHERS v. IRELAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.03.2022 - 30254/18
Where there is no legal recognition between a child and his or her parents, the Court observes the existence of de facto family ties (see Johnston and Others v. Ireland, 18 December 1986, § 56, Series A no. 112). - EGMR, 01.02.2000 - 34406/97
MAZUREK c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.03.2022 - 30254/18
However, the Court has found on several occasions that the difference of treatment on the grounds of birth within or out of wedlock could only be made if very weighty reasons existed (see Sahin v. Germany [GC], no. 30943/96, ECHR 2003-VIII; Mazurek v. France, no. 34406/97, ECHR 2000-II; and Camp and Bourimi v. the Netherlands, no. 28369/95, ECHR 2000-X). - EGMR, 03.10.2000 - 28369/95
CAMP ET BOURIMI c. PAYS-BAS
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.03.2022 - 30254/18
However, the Court has found on several occasions that the difference of treatment on the grounds of birth within or out of wedlock could only be made if very weighty reasons existed (see Sahin v. Germany [GC], no. 30943/96, ECHR 2003-VIII; Mazurek v. France, no. 34406/97, ECHR 2000-II; and Camp and Bourimi v. the Netherlands, no. 28369/95, ECHR 2000-X). - EGMR, 21.12.1999 - 33290/96
SALGUEIRO DA SILVA MOUTA c. PORTUGAL
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.03.2022 - 30254/18
In that regard, the Court has found violations of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention where a partner in an unmarried same-sex couple was not allowed to adopt the child of her girlfriend without severing their legal ties (X and Others v. Austria [GC], no. 19010/07, ECHR 2013), where a homosexual man was prevented from having parental authority over his daughter on account of his sexual orientation (Salgueiro da Silva Mouta v. Portugal, no. 33290/96, ECHR 1999-IX) or where a lesbian woman was prevented from adopting a child (E.B. v. France [GC], no. 43546/02, 22 January 2008). - EGMR, 24.03.2022 - 29775/18
C.E. u.a. ./. Frankreich - Rechtliche Beziehung zwischen einem Kind und dem …
- EGMR, 19.11.2019 - 1462/18
C ET E c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 12.11.2020 - 19511/16
HONNER c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 21.07.2016 - 9063/14
FOULON ET BOUVET c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 22.11.2022 - 58817/15
D.B. ET AUTRES c. SUISSE
En atteste notamment la pratique de la Cour consistant à interroger les parties, au stade de la communication de requêtes individuelles, sur la prise en compte des avis consultatifs par les autorités de l'ensemble des États parties (voir, par exemple, S.C. et autres c. Suisse, no 26848/18 ; A.M. c. Norvège, no 30254/18 ; et K. K. et autres c. Danemark, no 25212/21).Je souhaite attirer l'attention sur une affaire récente, A.M. c. Norvège (no 30254/18, 24 mars 2022), où la Cour a conclu à la non-violation de la Convention par la Norvège malgré l'absence de reconnaissance juridique de la qualité de parent d'une mère d'intention qui n'avait pas de lien biologique avec un enfant né d'une gestation pour autrui à l'étranger.
- EGMR, 06.12.2022 - 25212/21
K.K. AND OTHERS v. DENMARK
The States must in principle be afforded a wide margin of appreciation regarding matters which raise delicate moral and ethical questions on which there is no consensus at European level (see, inter alia, Mennesson v. France, no. 65192/11, §§ 78-79, ECHR 2014 (extracts); Valdís Fjölnisdóttir and Others, cited above, § 70; and A.M. v. Norway, no. 30254/18, § 131, 24 March 2022).