CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 7 septembre 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sA7F61D3B { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s16B96457 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; border:0.75pt solid #000000; padding:1pt 4pt; font-size:10pt } .s2D726B78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sA43C3626 { width:28.35pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s329183A { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:14pt; text-transform:uppercase } .sE5EEB06B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s3936C9DD { width:11.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s8B983D37 { text-transform:none } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sBB64854C { width:8.45pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6F9C7ED9 { margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s119C1441 { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s5BDECA8 { width:5pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s99272BBB { margin-left:8.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s54B12A03 { width:6.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s452883D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s8EB5F569 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .s7D18490B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sE8F2C496 { width:5.11pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sDD998142 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9804041A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-19.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7B868B6A { width:9.85pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2FA28896 { margin-left:8.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:normal } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s507990D1 { margin-left:8.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s9CB9BE2 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD8E89A4 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD051EF8 { width:3.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s4196892D { width:3.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sC7F250FD { font-style:normal } .s6F863F49 { width:6.51pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCFD24F21 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s74818F78 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .sE7B3A78A { width:1.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sAD9CA6D3 { margin-top:24pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sC617E28F { width:20.21pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sE417EA85 { width:127.42pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s1E019DFF { width:46.56pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sA49AD2E4 { width:177.11pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s3BF0B6C7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8B15FBF9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:8.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7C9EDFAD { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .fixListIndent { list-style-position: inside }   FIFTH SECTION CASE OF GAUVIN-FOURNIS AND SILLIAU v.   FRANCE (Applications nos.   21424/16 and 45728/17)     JUDGMENT   Art   8 •   Positive obligations •   Private life •   Refusal by national authorities to allow individuals conceived using donor-assisted reproduction to access information about their donor, owing to rule of anonymous gamete donation •   Wide margin of appreciation afforded concerning means of ensuring effective respect for applicants’ private life, but reduced because essential aspect of their private life was in issue •   Right to access information about one’s origins protected by Convention •   Rights and interests at stake weighed up by legislature following constructive, in-depth debate on whether to remove donor anonymity •   No clear European consensus on access to information about one’s origins but recent trend towards removing donor anonymity •   Fair balance between competing interests at stake struck by State in refusing requests to access donors’ non ‑ identifying medical information, on ground of medical confidentiality (with exceptions for doctors) •   Legislature’s decision to make access to information about origins by individuals born before entry into force (1   September 2022) of new legislation (enabling access to information about donors who at time of donation consented to its collection and storage) subject to donor consent in order to respect situations pre-dating that legislation •   Margin of appreciation not overstepped   STRASBOURG 7 September 2023   FINAL   19/02/2024   This judgment has become final under Article   44 §   2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Gauvin-Fournis and Silliau v.   France, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Georges Ravarani, President ,   Carlo Ranzoni,   Mārtiņš Mits,   Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström,   María Elósegui,   Mykola Gnatovskyy, judges ,   Catherine Brouard-Gallet, ad   hoc judge , and Victor Soloveytchik, Section Registrar , Having regard to: the applications (nos.   21424/16 and 45728/17) against the French Republic lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by two French nationals, Ms   Audrey Gauvin-Fournis and Mr   Clément Silliau (“the applicants”), on 15   April 2016 and 23   June 2017 respectively; the decision to give notice to the French Government (“the Government”) of the complaints under Article   8 of the Convention, taken alone and together with Article   14, and to declare the remainder of the applications inadmissible; the observations submitted by the Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants; the comments submitted by the European Centre for Law and Justice (ECLJ) and Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) International, which were granted leave to intervene by the President of the Section; Considering that Mattias Guyomar, the judge elected in respect of France, was unable to sit in the case (Rule   28 of the Rules of Court) and the President of the Chamber thus decided to appoint Catherine Brouard-Gallet to sit as an ad   hoc judge (Rule   29 §   1   (b)); Having deliberated in private on 27   June 2023, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The case concerns the alleged impossibility for the applicants, who were conceived using donor-assisted reproduction, to access information about their respective donors. They complained of a violation of Article   8 of the Convention, in so far as it enshrined the right to access information about one’s origins, and of discrimination in breach of Article   14. THE FACTS 2.     The first applicant, Audrey Gauvin-Fournis, was born in 1980 and lives in Levallois-Perret. She was represented by Mr   B.   Favreau, a lawyer practising in Bordeaux. The second applicant, Clément Silliau, was born in 1989 and lives in Beaune-la-Rolande. He was represented by Mr   C.   Pettiti, a lawyer practising in Paris. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr   F.   Alabrune, Director of Legal Affairs at the Ministry of European and Foreign Affairs.         APPLICATION N o .   21424/16 4.     The first applicant was conceived through artificial insemination by donor sperm, an assisted reproductive technology (ART) procedure that consists in injecting sperm directly into the uterus of a woman   – in the present case the applicant’s birth and biological mother. In 2009, when the applicant was 29, her parents told her how she had been conceived. 5.     On 22   February 2010 the applicant requested that the Bondy Centre for Egg and Sperm Research and Preservation ( Centre d’études et de conservation des œufs et du sperme   – “the CECOS”) provide her with information about the donor of the gametes used in her conception. Specifically, she asked for his identity and for non-identifying information such as his age, his occupational status, a physical description, the reasons for his donation, the number of people conceived using his gametes, and details of his medical history. In particular, she wished to know whether her brother, who had been born in 1977, had been conceived using the same donor. 6 .     Following a tacit refusal to grant that request, the applicant applied to the Commission for Access to Administrative Documents ( Commission d’accès aux documents administratifs   – “the CADA”). On 27   July 2010 it issued an opinion advising against the requested disclosure of information, except in so far as it concerned the applicant’s parents’ medical files documenting the steps they had taken to obtain the ART procedure. Citing the principle of anonymous gamete donation (see paragraphs   29-34 below), the CADA gave the following reasons for its opinion: “...   [T]he need to protect family life within the child’s legal family, which could be destabilised by the identification of the donor. ...   [T]he psychological and family-related interests of the donor, whose voluntary act is generally intended solely to provide assistance to couples unable to have children, and who in most cases does not want his or her identity to be disclosed. It should be noted in this regard that, under Article   311-19 of the Civil Code, ‘...   no legal parent-child relationship may be established between the donor and the donor-conceived child’. ...   [P]ublic-interest considerations relating to the consequences of removing anonymity. As can be seen from the experience of States that have removed gamete-donor anonymity, such a reform may have the effect, firstly, of reducing the supply and demand of gametes to varying degrees and, secondly and most importantly, of dissuading parents from telling their child how he or she was conceived. CECOS practice shows, however, that it is preferable from a psychological point of view to inform the child of this fact as soon as he or she is capable of understanding.” 7.     With regard to the applicant’s argument that there was an increased risk of incest and consanguinity, the CADA stated that the risk was not above average and was actually probably lower than in certain areas characterised by low geographical mobility among residents. It also said that the legislature would have taken that factor into consideration. As to non ‑ identifying information about the donor, the CADA pointed out that only medical information could be disclosed, and even then only to doctors (see paragraphs   29 and 34 below). The CADA then concluded that it was for the legislature alone to decide whether or not to make non-identifying information about the donor accessible. This was not, however, before it informed the applicant that several reports and studies had found in favour of lifting the ban on disclosing non-identifying information, and that France’s position made it an outlier among the Council of Europe’s member States. Many had removed anonymity either without restrictions (Sweden, the United Kingdom, Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Norway and Finland) or subject to donor consent (Belgium and Iceland), while others had authorised the disclosure of non ‑ identifying information (the Netherlands and Spain). 8 .     On 21   September 2010 the applicant applied to the Montreuil Administrative Court to have the CECOS’s tacit decision set aside. She also requested that the Administrative Court order the Paris regional health authority, Assistance publique – Hôpitaux de Paris (“AP-HP”), which was acting in support of the respondent in the proceedings, to provide her with the requested information and to pay her the sum of 100,000   euros (EUR) in damages. The applicant submitted, in particular, that her inability to access the information in question prevented her from having full enjoyment of her right to an identity, in breach of Articles   8 and 14 of the Convention. 9 .     On 31   August 2011 Dr   B., a hospital psychiatrist, issued a medical certificate at the applicant’s request, attesting to the severe identity crisis she had been suffering since learning about her unknown origins. 10 .     On 14   June 2012 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s requests in the following terms: “... [T]he information in the file of a gamete donor for ART purposes constitutes confidential information protected by law within the meaning of section   6 of the Law of 11   July 1978, which in particular guarantees that the donor’s anonymity will be protected from anyone requesting access to it, notably any individual who was conceived from his or her donated gametes   ... [The applicant] is not one of the persons and authorities to which the law strictly reserves access to certain information concerning gamete donors. It follows that the [CECOS] was able, without committing a mistake of law, to refuse to disclose to her (i)   non ‑ identifying information about the donor who enabled her conception and (ii)   information about any biological connections with her brother, who had been conceived in the same way   ... ... [T]he provisions of Article   8 of [the Convention], the purpose of which is to ensure a fair balance between the public interest and the requirements of the protection of private life, including in relationships between individuals, afford the legislature a wide margin of appreciation in the field of [ART] in particular, in terms both of choosing the means by which to implement such a policy and of assessing whether their consequences are justified, in the public interest, by the need to achieve the aims pursued by the law. The rule of gamete-donor anonymity, which notably serves the aim of respect for family life within the legal family of the child conceived from the donated gametes, and the aim of protection of the donor’s private life, does not in itself entail any interference with the private life of the individual thus conceived   ... Moreover, the provisions of Article   L.   1244-6 of the Public Health Code, which restrict access to non-identifying medical information in the donor’s file solely to a doctor in the event of a therapeutic necessity concerning the donor-conceived child, notably serve the purposes of protecting health, preserving private life and safeguarding medical confidentiality. This difference in treatment between the doctor and any other person, which falls within the margin of appreciation that Articles   8 and 14 of [the Convention] afford solely to the national legislature, is not incompatible with those provisions. The provisions of section   6   (II) of the Law of 17   July 1978, which restrict access to documents whose disclosure would breach medical confidentiality solely to the individual concerned, and which serve, in particular, the aims of preserving private life and safeguarding medical confidentiality, do not constitute discrimination prohibited by [the above-cited Articles   8 and 14] either.   ...” 11.     The applicant appealed against the decision. 12.     In his opinion on that case, the public rapporteur emphasised that the legislation made no provisions for children conceived by gamete donation, even in the event of a therapeutic necessity, and that such a “vacuum” was difficult to reconcile with Article   8 of the Convention and the Court’s case ‑ law. 13.     In a judgment of 2   July 2013 the Versailles Administrative Court of Appeal upheld the Administrative Court’s judgment using the same terms, specifying that the ban on accessing the information in question applied to all donations of body parts or products (see paragraph   38 below). 14.     The applicant appealed on points of law against that judgment. In her submissions she relied on the Court’s case-law to complain of a system of absolute anonymity and to argue that the right to know one’s origins could be restricted only where there were overriding interests. She asserted that the disclosure of non ‑ identifying information, medical or otherwise, would do no harm to the donor, who would remain anonymous. As to the other interests at stake, she submitted that those of donors were not necessarily immutable and absolute, since some donors wished to make their identity known, and that French law wrongly presumed to know the opinion of donors and their families. She disputed the argument that the removal of donor anonymity might reduce the number of donations, citing the United Kingdom as an example to the contrary. She also challenged the need for absolute anonymity in the interest of the recipient couple and family life, particularly where, as in her case, the conditions of conception had been revealed, and given that her parents and brother were in favour of the removal of anonymity. Lastly, she complained of discrimination on the grounds of her birth, in breach of Article   14 of the Convention. 15.     In his opinion on that case, the public rapporteur stated that the interests that were likely to be weighed in the balance against the vital interest of knowing one’s parentage did not appear to be very compelling from the standpoint of the Convention. He nevertheless concluded that the appeal should be dismissed because the Court had taken no position on the issue of gamete-donor anonymity. 16 .     On 12   November 2015 the Conseil d’État dismissed the appeal in a decision along the same lines as a previous opinion delivered on 13   June 2013 in another case (see paragraph   35 below). The relevant parts read: “5.     First, in defining access to non-identifying information in Articles   L.   1244-6 and L.   1131-1-2 of the Public Health Code, the legislature was seeking to protect the health of donor-conceived individuals while ensuring respect for the rights and freedoms of others. In this regard, the provisions of Article   L.   1244-6, according to which a doctor may access non-identifying medical information in the event of a therapeutic necessity, must be understood as not preventing such information from being obtained for preventive purposes, in particular in the case of a couple formed by two donor-conceived individuals. While such information is available only to a doctor and not to the individual concerned, the reconciliation of the interests at stake thus performed and the difference in treatment between the doctor and any other person falls within the margin of appreciation afforded to the national legislature under the aforementioned provisions of Article   8 of the Convention, particularly given the disadvantages that disclosing such information to the individuals concerned would have with regard to the aims of protecting health and preserving private life and medical confidentiality. 6.     As regards identifying information, the rule of anonymity serves the aim of protecting the private life of donors and their families. While this rule, which applies to all donations of body parts or products, prevents certain requests for information from being granted, it does not in itself entail any interference with the private and family life of the donor-conceived individual, especially since it is for the parents alone to decide whether or not to reveal the truth about his or her conception. In refusing any change to the rule of anonymity when enacting the Law of 7   July 2011, the legislature based its decision on several public-interest considerations, including the need to preserve family harmony along with the major risk of undermining the social and emotional nature of parent-child relationships, the risk of a substantial decrease in gamete donations, and the risk of calling into question the ethics of all donations of body parts or products. 7.     In thus prohibiting the disclosure of a gamete donor’s personal information, except in the circumstances indicated in paragraph   5, the legislature struck a fair balance between the interests at stake. Accordingly, this ban is not incompatible with the provisions of Article   8 of the Convention. 8.     Second, while, in the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention, Article   14 affords protection against different treatment   – without an objective and reasonable justification   – of individuals in relevantly similar situations, a child conceived by gamete donation is not in an analogous and thus relevantly similar situation either to the children of the gamete donor or to the children of the recipient couple. In consequence, no discrimination, within the meaning of those provisions, is suffered by the donor-conceived child in terms of access to such information.” 17 .     In her submissions to the Court the applicant stated that in September 2017 she and nine other people conceived in France by gamete donation, including her brother and her husband, had decided to take recreational DNA tests marketed by the US company 23andme. The results showed that four of the ten people tested, including her and her brother, were conceived using the same donor. She specified that her husband had been able to identify and locate his donor, who had expressed his joy in having found him and had informed him of his medical history. 18 .     On 3   August 2021 Law no.   2021-1017 of 2   August 2021 on bioethics (“the Law of 2021”) was published in the Official Gazette of the French Republic. Section   5 of that Law introduces a system whereby donor-conceived individuals can obtain information once they have reached the age of majority. It also enables individuals born under the former system to request access to their donor’s non ‑ identifying information and identity (see paragraphs   50-54 below). The system entered into force on 1   September 2022. 19 .     On 21   November 2022 the applicant informed the Court that on 7   October 2022 she had applied to the newly established Commission on Access to Donor Information by Persons Conceived Using Assisted Reproductive Technology ( Commission d’accès des personnes nées d’une assistance médicale à la procréation aux données des tiers donneurs – “the CAPADD”) to obtain access to information about her origins (see paragraph   54 below). On 28   March 2023 the CAPADD replied that it was unable to grant her request because the information gathered had revealed that the donor had passed away, and that it could not, “without [his] express, personal consent” and “as legislation currently [stood]”, disclose his identifying and non-identifying information to her. It did not specify whether the donor had passed away before or after she had lodged her application.       APPLICATION N o .   45728/17 20.     The second applicant was conceived through artificial insemination by donor sperm, an ART procedure that consists in injecting sperm directly into the uterus of a woman   – in the present case the applicant’s birth and biological mother. In 2006, when the applicant was 17, his parents told him how he had been conceived. 21 .     In a letter of 18   March 2010, which remained unanswered, the applicant asked the CECOS to provide him with information about the background to his conception. In particular, he wished to obtain the donor’s identity, medical history and other, non-identifying information such as his motives, his family situation and a physical description. 22.     Following that tacit refusal, the applicant applied to the CADA. On 22   December 2010 it stated that his request had become devoid of purpose because the donor’s file could not be found. 23.     On 16   September 2011 the applicant applied to the Paris Administrative Court using arguments similar to those of the first applicant in application no.   21424/16 (see paragraph   8 above). 24.     On 10   November 2011 AP-HP informed the applicant that his donor’s file had been recovered but that under French law no information could be disclosed. 25.     On 6   December 2013 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s requests for the same reasons given by the Montreuil Administrative Court in its judgment of 14   June 2012 (see paragraph   10 above). 26 .     In a judgment of 22   January 2016 the Versailles Administrative Court of Appeal upheld the Administrative Court’s judgment using the same terms. It further stated that the psychological issues relied on by the applicant to obtain medical information did not amount to therapeutic necessities within the meaning of the law. 27.     The applicant appealed on points of law, alleging a violation of Articles   8 and 14 of the Convention. 28.     In a decision of 23   December 2016 the Conseil d’État declared his appeal inadmissible. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE         DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE    Provisions of the Civil Code, Criminal Code and Public Health Code applicable at the material time and case-law      Civil Code 29 .     Article   16-8 of the Civil Code provided: “No information may be disclosed that would enable the identification either of the donor of a body part or product, or of the recipient thereof. The donor may not know the identity of the recipient, nor the recipient that of the donor. In the event of a therapeutic necessity, only the doctors of the donor and of the recipient may have access to information that would allow their identification.” 30 .     Article   16-9 read: “The provisions of the present Chapter are a matter of public policy.” 31 .     Article   311-19 provided: “In cases of donor-assisted reproduction, no legal parent-child relationship may be established between the donor and the donor-conceived child. No action for damages may be brought against the donor.” 32 .     Article   311-20 read: “Married or cohabiting couples who, in order to conceive, have recourse to medical assistance involving a third-party donor shall give their prior consent, in a manner that ensures confidentiality, before the judge or notary, who shall inform them of the implications of this act as regards the legal parent-child relationship. Consent to assisted reproduction shall preclude any action to establish or to dispute the legal parent-child relationship, unless it is argued that the child was not conceived using assisted reproduction or that the consent has been rendered ineffectual. ... Any man who, having given his consent to assisted reproduction, does not recognise the child born as a result shall incur liability vis-à-vis the mother and the child. A judicial declaration of paternity shall also be issued in his regard. The action shall be brought in conformity with the provisions of Articles   328 and   331.”      Criminal Code 33.     Article   511-10 of the Criminal Code read: “Any disclosure of information enabling the identification both of an individual or couple who have donated gametes, and of the recipient couple, shall be punished by two years’ imprisonment and a fine of 30,000   euros.”      Public Health Code 34 .     The relevant provisions of the Public Health Code read: Article   L.   1131-1-2 “... Where either an individual who has donated gametes which have led to the conception of one or more children, or one of the members of a couple who have donated an embryo, is diagnosed with a serious genetic disorder, the consequences of which are susceptible of preventive measures, including genetic counselling, or of treatment, then that individual may authorise the prescribing doctor to contact the head of the assisted reproduction centre so that any children conceived using his or her donation can be informed in accordance with the provisions of the fourth paragraph.” Article   L.   1211-5 “The donor may not know the identity of the recipient, nor the recipient that of the donor. No information may be disclosed that would enable the identification either of the donor of a body part or product, or of the recipient thereof. There shall be no exceptions to this principle of anonymity other than in the event of a therapeutic necessity.” Article   L.   1244-6 “The bodies and institutions authorised in accordance with the provisions of Article   L.   2142-1 shall provide the health authorities with the relevant information about donors. A doctor may access non-identifying medical information in the event of a therapeutic necessity concerning a donor-conceived child. ...” Article   R.   1244-5 “To fulfil their obligations under Article   L.   1244-6, health bodies and institutions authorised to perform the activities referred to in points   1 o (d) and 2 o (c) and (d) of Article   R.   2142-1 shall store information on the donor. The donor’s file shall contain the following anonymised information: 1 o     any personal and family medical history needed for the performance of donor-assisted reproduction; 2 o     the results of the health screening tests provided for in Articles   R.   1211-25 and R.   1211 ‑ 26; 3 o     the number of children conceived from the donation; 4 o     for sperm donations, the date of the donation, the number of straws stored, the date on which sperm was made available and the number of straws made available; ... 6 o     the written consent of the donor and, if the donor is part of a couple, that of the other member of the couple. Practicians accredited to perform the activities referred to in the first paragraph, in accordance with Article   L.   2142-1-1, shall be responsible for the proper handling of the file and the accuracy of the information contained therein. The file shall be stored for a minimum of 40   years and shall be anonymised regardless of the storage medium. Archiving shall be carried out under conditions that guarantee confidentiality. Prior to gamete collection or retrieval, the donor shall give his or her express consent to the storage of this file. Information pertaining to the identity of donors, the identification of any children born and the biological connections between them shall be stored in such a way as to guarantee its strict confidentiality, regardless of the storage medium. Only practitioners accredited to perform the activities referred to in the first paragraph shall have access to such information.”      Case-law 35 .     On 21   September 2012 the Paris Administrative Court requested an opinion from the Conseil d’État as to the compatibility of the aforementioned provisions (see paragraphs   29-34 above) with Article   8 of the Convention. The Conseil d’État replied as follows in its opinion of 13   June 2013 (no.   362981): “... 9.     Pursuant to Article   8 of the Convention   ..., the rules applicable to assisted reproduction have to take into account the various private interests at stake, namely those of the donor and of his or her family, those of the recipient couple, those of the donor-conceived child and those of that child’s family. In this context, the rule of gamete-donor anonymity serves first and foremost the aim of protecting the private life of the donor and his or her family. With regard to the recipient couple, the rule of anonymity serves the aim of ensuring respect for family life within the donor-conceived child’s legal family, it being specified that, in so far as the recipient is concerned, the rule of anonymity cannot in any event amount to an interference with private life for the purposes of Article   8 of the Convention. 10.     As regards the donor-conceived individual, even though the rule of anonymity prevents certain requests for information from being granted, that rule, which applies to all donations of body parts or products, does not in itself entail any interference with the private and family life of the individual thus conceived, especially since it is for the parents alone to decide whether or not to reveal the truth about that individual’s conception. 11.     As it emerged, in particular, from the recent debate on the Law of 7   July 2011, the legislature’s decision to exclude any change to the rule of anonymity was based on several public-interest considerations, including the need to preserve family harmony along with the major risk of undermining the social and emotional nature of parent-child relationships, the risk of a substantial decrease in gamete donations, and the risk of calling into question the ethics of all donations of body parts or products. In this area, it is for the legislature alone to make a fresh assessment, where appropriate, of the public-interest considerations to be taken into account and the consequences that they may have. 12.     It follows from the foregoing that in prohibiting the disclosure of any personal information about a gamete donor, the legislature struck a fair balance between the interests at stake and that, accordingly, this ban is not incompatible with the provisions of the Convention   ...” 36 .     In a decision of 28   December 2017 (no.   396571) the Conseil d’État confirmed that the principle of anonymous gamete donation was compatible with Article   8. It found as follows: “5.     ... [I]t is apparent from the wording of the impugned judgment that the Administrative Court dismissed the arguments alleging a breach of Articles   8 and 14 of the Convention, after noting that the rules for accessing a gamete donor’s personal information, which were set by the legislature and formed the basis of the refusals in issue, were not incompatible with the provisions of those Articles. The applicant submitted that the first-instance court had thereby failed in its duty, since he had also alleged that those Articles had been breached by the refusals he had received, arguing, first, that his legal family agreed with what he was doing and, second, that there had been no prior verification of whether the donor consented to the disclosure of his identity. It is true that the compatibility of the law with the provisions of the Convention does not preclude the possibility, in certain specific circumstances, that the application of legislation amounts to a disproportionate interference with Convention rights. In consequence, where an applicant argues that such specific circumstances are present, it is for the courts to assess whether in practice, given the purpose of the legislation in issue, the interference with the Convention rights and freedoms that results from the application of such legislation   – itself Convention-compatible   – is not excessive. 6.     The legislature’s decision to prohibit the disclosure of any personal information about gamete donors and then to exclude any change to the rule of anonymity was based on several public-interest considerations, including the need to preserve family harmony along with the major risk of undermining the social and emotional nature of parent-child relationships, the risk of a substantial decrease in gamete donations, and the risk of calling into question the ethics of all donations of body parts or products. In relation to the last reason, which reflects the French philosophy towards respect for the human body, there are no particular circumstances specific to an applicant’s situation under which the application of the legislation on anonymous gamete donation   – which inevitably resulted in the rejection of the applications in issue   – could be regarded as an excessive interference with Convention rights and freedoms   ...”    History and development of the principle of anonymous gamete donation 37.     Prior to 1994 gamete donation was organised either through the network of CECOSs, which were established in 1973 and were generally hosted by university hospitals, or through the private sector   – without strict regulation   – by gynaecologists who would purchase sperm straws from private sperm banks or use fresh-sperm donors. 38 .     Law no.   94-654 of 29   July 1994 on the donation and use of parts and products of the human body, assisted reproduction technology and prenatal diagnosis (“the Law of 1994”) enshrined the principle of anonymous gamete donation in line with standard CECOS practice and the rules applicable to any other donations of body parts or products. During the legislative debates, the arguments in favour of anonymity were based, in particular, on a desire not to emphasise the biological aspect of conception and instead to preserve the unity of the legal family. Other arguments included the need to protect the privacy of the donor and his or her family, and to reduce the risk of pressure and trafficking. Anonymity was thus a natural consequence of the principle that parts of the human body were not property and could not be traded for consideration. The legislature also sought to propose a single set of principles applicable to all parts and products of the human body. 39 .     The report of the National Assembly’s commission of enquiry on the rights of children in France, which was adopted in May 1998, suggested the introduction of a system similar to that in the United Kingdom, whereby children conceived by ART were authorised, at the age of 18, to have access to information about their genetic origins. The system would first be rolled out for children whose mother decided to give birth anonymously and thus to keep her identity secret and then, “when the legislature consider[ed] it appropriate, for ART births”. 40.     In opinion no.   90 of 24   November 2005 on “Access to information about origins, anonymity and secrecy of parentage”, the National Ethics Advisory Committee on Life and Health Sciences ( Comité consultatif national d’éthique pour les sciences de la vie et de la santé   – “the CCNE”) recommended removing the confidentiality of non-identifying information only. It indicated that the remit of the National Council for Access to Information about Personal Origins ( Conseil national pour l’accès aux origines personnelles   – “the CNAOP”), which had been established to help people born of anonymous parents to access information about their origins (see paragraph   107 below), could be expanded to include donor-conceived individuals of full age. 41 .     In a study of 6   May 2009 entitled “Review of bioethics laws”, the Conseil d’État noted a “[clear] trend towards partial or total removal of anonymity” and “research showing that the rigid application of the principle of anonymity laid down in 1994 entail[ed] harmful effects for children in the long term, essentially because they [were] deprived of an aspect of their history”. It recommended the introduction of a system combining access to certain categories of non-identifying information about the gamete donor for any adult child who so requested, and the possibility of removing anonymity at the child’s request subject to the donor’s consent. In its view, that option had “the advantage of adapting to the needs of the children without giving priority to the interests of the adults”. At the same time, it had the “limit of leaving the child at a stalemate if the donor refused”, since “it seem[ed] impossible to require the donor to reveal his or her identity”. 42 .     The rule of gamete-donor anonymity was not called into question in the Laws of 6   August 2004 (no.   2004-800) or of 7   July 2011 (no.   2011 ‑ 814) on bioethics. The Law of 7   July 2011 established the principle of a fresh review of the subject as a whole by Parliament within seven years (previously five years), following a public debate in the form of a consultation ( états généraux ) on bioethics. In a bill submitted to the National Assembly on 20   October 2010, the government had provided for the possibility of access to non ‑ identifying information about the donor and   – subject to donor consent   – to his or her identity. Those provisions were the topic of considerable debate by the National Assembly’s special committee and were ultimately not enacted. They were then restored by the Senate’s Social Affairs Committee, which recommended automatically removing anonymity upon request for any child born after 1   January 2014 who had reached the age of majority. The restored provisions were reduced by amendments and were finally rejected in full. During the debates, the members of Parliament voiced concerns about a confusion between biological parentage and a parent-child relationship based on law and upbringing, a decrease in the number of donors, and the risk that the circumstances surrounding children’s conception would be hidden more frequently. 43.     A report entitled “Parentage, origins and parenthood: the law confronted with new values of generational responsibility”, which was submitted to the Minister of Social Affairs and Health in 2014, pointed out that the rule of confidentiality and anonymity was originally universal, based on the model of “out of sight, out of mind”. Gradually, a new model of responsibility emerged at international level, which saw many countries offer the possibility, for those who so wished, to have their donor’s anonymity removed. That development did not take place in France, where “a real deadlock exist[ed]” on account of the confusion maintained over parentage during the preparation of the law of 2011 and of the accusation that young people wanted to seek out “parents” or even to advocate a “biologicalisation of parentage”. The report criticised the failure to take into account, on the one hand, the distinction between parentage and the right to access information about one’s origins and, on the other, the Court’s case-law. It recommended that a system be introduced to disclose non ‑ identifying information and that the identity of the donor be made available to any donor-conceived individual of full age who so requested. 44 .     In a study entitled “Revising the Bioethics Act: options going forward”, which was submitted to the Prime Minister on 6   July 2018, the Conseil d’État began by pointing out that the choice made in 1994, “even though it [had] reflected CECOS practice, [had] by no means [been] easy and [had] represented a default solution for the members of Parliament”. The relevance of “absolute, unconditional and irreversible” anonymity, as prescribed by Article   16-8 of the Civil Code, had started to be questioned when the first donor-conceived children had reached adulthood. A number of such individuals had expressed their suffering at having been deprived of their biological origins and had sought to obtain recognition of the special nature of “donation for conception” and to have donor anonymity removed. The study emphasised factors that potentially argued in favour of a new balance between donor anonymity and access by children to information about their origins. These included the harmful effects of the principle of anonymity on some children; the diversification of family structures, which was gradually normalising the dissociation between legal and biological parentage; and the 2018 CECOS opinion in favour of making non-identifying information accessible. The study considered it imaginable to permit donor-conceived children to access the identity of their donor upon reac