| Applicant name | R.F. ET AUTRES |
| Applicant type | natural person |
| Number of applicants | 3 |
| Country | Germany |
| Application no. | 46808/1 |
| Date | 12/11/2024 |
| Judges | Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer, présidente, Faris Vehabović, Anja Seibert-Fohr, Ana Maria Guerra Martins, Anne Louise Bormann, Sebastian Răduleţu, Mateja Đurović |
| Institution | Court |
| Type | Judgment |
| Outcome Art. 8 | No violation |
| Reason | Fair balance struck |
| Type of privacy | relational privacy |
| Keywords | medically assisted procreation; abroad; gay couple; recognition child |
| Facts of the case | The applicants complained of the German authorities’ refusal to find that the first applicant was also related to the applicant, even though she was his genetic mother. They considered that this constituted a violation of their right to respect for their private and family life. They further submitted that the adoption of the applicant by the first applicant, which had been granted in the meantime , had not remedied this violation. They relied on Article 8 of the Convention, the relevant part of which reads as follows : |
| Analysis | The Court recalls that, in cases concerning the lack of legal recognition in domestic law of a parentage relationship legally established abroad between children born through surrogacy in a foreign country and their intended parents, it has considered that an effective mechanism was required to enable recognition of that relationship and that an adoption procedure could meet that need provided that its conditions were appropriate and its modalities allowed for a rapid decision, so as to avoid the child being kept in legal uncertainty for a long time as to that relationship. It clarified that this conclusion also applied in the case of a child born from the gametes of the intended father and those of the intended mother. The Court notes that the adoption was granted a little over two years after the applicant’s birth, a period which could have been shortened, as the Government point out, and that the applicants have not indicated that they encountered any particular difficulties during the proceedings. It further notes that, pending the conclusion of the adoption procedure, the first applicant had certain prerogatives with regard to the applicant which, even if they derived not from her genetic link with the applicant but from her legal union with the second applicant, limited the legal uncertainty invoked by the applicant and had at the very least the effect of authorising her to exercise rights and duties relating to parenthood with regard to the child. Given that the case raises sensitive moral and ethical questions relating to medically assisted procreation techniques and that there is no consensus among the Contracting States as to the answers to be given to these questions, the Court must exercise caution in exercising its review of conventionality. . |
| Other Article violation? | No violation 8+14, 6 |
| Damage awarded | – |
| Documents | Judgment |