CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 6 septembre 2019

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 232 August-September 2019 A.M. v. Norway (communicated case) - 30254/18   Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for family life Respect for private life Intended mother legally prevented from adopting or obtaining visiting rights vis-à-vis child born through a gestational surrogacy arrangement abroad: communicated The applicant, a Norwegian woman, together with a Norwegian man (E.B.), entered into a gestational surrogacy agreement with a woman living in the United States. A US district court recognised the applicant as “the legal parent of any child born under the validated (…) agreement”. A child was subsequently conceived, using sperm from E.B. and an ovum from an unknown donor. After returning to Norway, E.B. refused to let the applicant see the child. The applicant lodged a civil claim, asking to have either her parental status under US law recognised in Norway, or to be allowed to adopt, or for E.B. to be ordered to allow her to see the child. The domestic courts found that there was no legal basis for any of these claims. The applicant sees this as an unjustified interference with her private and family life. She also maintains that there is no objective or justifiable basis for treating her differently from persons who were covered by the Interim Act on the transfer of parenthood for children in Norway born abroad by surrogate mothers. Communicated under Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes