CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 juin 2021

.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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3DB8B455 { width:81.46%; border-collapse:collapse } .s3528E815 { width:8.84%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sCC545E37 { width:30.38%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDB76C293 { width:8.84%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sEABCC374 { width:30.38%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   Published on 28 June 2021   SECOND SECTION Application no. 25212/21 K.K. and Others against Denmark lodged on 11 May 2021 communicated on 3 June 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE In December 2013, a surrogate mother in Ukraine gave birth to two children (the second and third applicants) following an agreement with the first applicant, K.K., and her husband, who was the genetic father of the children. It was unknown whether the first applicant was the genetic mother. The children were brought to Denmark, where the authorities approved joint custody of them for the first applicant and her husband. However, the authorities refused to grant the first applicant adoption as a step-parent, finding that it would be contrary to Section 15 of the Adoption Act, since the surrogate mother had been paid to consent to adoption. The first applicant brought the refusal to grant her adoption before the courts, which found against her, most recently in a judgment of 16   November 2020 by the Supreme Court. The latter held that the children had a significant interest in being adopted by the first applicant and in securing legal recognition of their identity as her children. Nevertheless, based on an overall assessment, it considered that the children’s interest, balanced against the general consideration that children should be protected against being traded and that exploitation of vulnerable women should be avoided, could not, at the relevant time, lead to a conclusion that the refusal of adoption was in breach of Article 8.   Before the Court, the applicants complained that the Supreme Court’s judgment of 16   November 2020 amounted to an infringement of their right to respect for private and family life as guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Was the Supreme Court’s judgment of 16 November 2020 in breach of the applicants’ right under Article 8 of the Convention (see, notably, Mennesson v. France , no. 65192/11, ECHR 2014 (extracts) and Advisory Opinion No. P16-2018-001 [GC], 10 April 2019)?     APPENDIX   No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality 1. M.K. 1967 Danish 2. L.A. 2013 Danish 3. M.A. 2013 Danish