CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 septembre 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Published on 23 September 2024   FIRST SECTION Application no. 5112/23 Darja GOGOLJEV and Vladimir GOGOLJEV against Slovenia lodged on 21 January 2023 communicated on 2 September 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicants are wife (first applicant) and husband (second applicant). They stored six frozen embryos in the Maribor Hospital in 2012. The embryos remain stored there to this day, although pursuant to domestic law they could only be stored for a maximum of ten years. In 2018, following the first applicant’s diagnosis of breast cancer and ensuing treatment, the applicants requested to have the embryos exported to Estonia, where they lived. The competent Slovenian authorities refused that request because the relevant law prohibited the export of embryos. The applicants also lodged a petition for review of the constitutionality of the relevant law, but that was rejected by the Constitutional Court on 22   September 2022. The applicants complain under Article 8 of the Convention that the absolute time-limit on the storage of the embryos and the prohibition on their export amount to a disproportionate interference with their family life. They submit that the stored embryos are their only chance to have a biological child. They also allege that they were not informed of all the decisions issued by the domestic authorities with respect to their request and therefore were unable to fully participate in the proceedings.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Have the applicants exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article   35 §   1 of the Convention?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their private and family life in view of the absolute time-limit on storage and the prohibition to export the embryos, within the meaning of Article   8 §   1 of the Convention?   If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article   8 §   2, with respect to both the substantive and the procedural aspect of Article 8?