The claimant had entered into fertilisation treatment with her boyfriend. They both signed an agreement under which the fertilised sperm were only later to be implanted with the agreement of both. The couple separated, and the potential father withdrew his consent to the treatment, and the woman was refused implantation. She complained of interference with her article 8 rights.
Held: Her claim failed. The Court will generally allow the national authorities a wide margin of appreciation when it comes to striking a balance between competing Convention rights.
The 1990 Act had been passed after detailed consideration and consultation. It had been explained to the applicant that the completion of the treatment depended upon the continuing consent of her partner, and she had signed to agree to this. An embryo did not itself have a right to life. Where a particularly important facet of an individual’s existence or identity is at stake, the margin allowed to the State will be restricted.
C.L. Rozakis, P
Times 17-Mar-2006, 6339/05, [2006] ECHR 200, [2007] ECHR 264, [2007] ECHR 265, (2008) 46 EHRR 34, [2007] 2 FCR 5, [2007] 1 FLR 1990, (2007) 95 BMLR 107, [2007] Fam Law 588, 22 BHRC 190
Worldlii, Bailii, Bailii, Bailii PR
European Convention on Human Rights 8, Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990
Human Rights
Cited by:
See Also – Evans v The United Kingdom ECHR 22-Nov-2006
. .
See Also – Evans v United Kingdom ECHR 10-Apr-2007
The claimant said that the English law on assisted conception infringed her right to family life. She had began treatment with her partner, and was given a cycle of in-vitro fertilisation before her cancerous condition required removal of her . .
Cited – Eweida And Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-Jan-2013
Eweida_ukECHR2013
The named claimant had been employed by British Airways. She was a committed Christian and wished to wear a small crucifix on a chain around her neck. This breached the then dress code and she was dismissed. Her appeals had failed. Other claimants . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Family, Health
Leading Case
Updated: 12 November 2021; Ref: scu.239579