CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 janvier 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 13 January 2017   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 46808/16 R.F. and others against Germany lodged on 2 August 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the domestic courts’ refusal to acknowledge a genetic mother’s legal motherhood. The second and the third applicant form a female same-sex civil partnership. The second applicant had donated an egg cell which was inseminated by an anonymous sperm donation and then transferred into the third applicant’s womb. The first applicant was given birth by the third applicant. The applicants complain under Article 8 of the Convention (right to private and family life) and Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 8 about the domestic authorities’ refusal to register the second applicant, who in the meantime adopted the child, as second parent. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Can the three applicants claim to be victims of a violation of Convention rights having regard to the fact that the second applicant eventually adopted the first applicant and thus obtained the legal status as second parent?   2. Does the authorities’ refusal to recognise the genetic parent-child relationship between the first and the second applicant constitute an interference with those applicants’ right to respect for their private and family life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention?   If so, were the authorities’ refusal to recognise the genetic parent-child relationship between the first and the second applicant and the associated practical difficulties for all three applicants in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?   3.     Have the applicants suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of their Convention rights on the ground of the sexual orientation of the second and third applicants, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 8?   If so, did that difference in treatment pursue a legitimate aim; and did it have a reasonable justification?