CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 septembre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Communicated on 6 September 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 30254/18 A.M. against Norway lodged on 19 June 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant and E.B., both Norwegian citizens, entered into a 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 gestational surrogacy agreement”. A child was subsequently conceived using sperm from E.B. and an ovum from an unknown donor. After returning to Norway, E.B. denied the applicant to see the child. She lodged a civil suit, asking to have her parental status under US law recognised in Norway; to be allowed to adopt; or for E.B. to be mandated to allow her to see the child. The domestic courts found that there was no legal basis for her claims. Under Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the domestic decisions violated her right to respect for her private and family life. Under Article 14 of the Convention, she complains that she has been treated differently than persons who were covered by the Interim Act on the Transfer of Parenthood for Children in Norway Born Abroad by Surrogate Mothers ( Midlertidig lov om overføring av foreldreskap for barn i Norge født av surrogatmor i utlandet mv. ), and that there is no objective or justifiable basis for the difference in treatment.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for her private and/or family life, 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 (see Advisory opinion concerning the recognition in domestic law of a legal parent-child relationship between a child born through a gestational surrogacy arrangement abroad and the intended mother [GC], request no. P16-2018-001, French Court of Cassation, 10 April 2019; Paradiso and Campanelli v. Italy [GC], no.   25358/12, 24 January 2017; and Mennesson v. France , no. 65192/11, ECHR   2014 (extracts))? In their response, the parties are invited to include observations on the significance of the criterion in Norwegian law whereby the applicant could only adopt the child if E.B. gave his consent.   2.     Has the applicant suffered discrimination contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 8?