CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 2 octobre 2012

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2D3BC823 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 156 October 2012 Knecht v. Romania - 10048/10 Judgment 2.10.2012 [Section III] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for family life Respect for private life Obstructive behaviour of local authorities in not returning embryos seized pursuant to investigation subsequently acknowledged by domestic court: no violation   Facts – On 24 July 2009 frozen embryos that the applicant had deposited with a private clinic were seized by the authorities due to concerns about the clinic’s credentials. The applicant subsequently experienced considerable difficulties in securing a transfer by the State of the embryos to a specialised clinic so that she might use them to become a parent by means of an IVF procedure. The applicant complained that this resulted in a breach of her right to a private and family life. Law – Article 8: It was not disputed between the parties that Article   8 was applicable. This was appropriate as “private life” is a broad term, encompassing, inter alia , elements such as the right to respect for the decisions both to have and not to have a child. Further, the measures under which the embryos were seized were prescribed by law and pursued a legitimate aim, namely the prevention of crime, the protection of health or morals, and the protection of the rights and freedom of others. In considering whether the measures taken were necessary in a democratic society, the Court noted that its task was not to substitute itself for the competent national authorities in determining the most appropriate policy for regulating matters of artificial procreation, especially since the use of IVF treatment gives rise to sensitive moral and ethical issues against a background of fast-moving medical and scientific developments. This is an area in which in principle Contracting States enjoy a wide margin of appreciation both in the decision to intervene and in how to establish a system of regulation. Against this background, it had not been shown that the decision to confiscate the embryos in the context of a criminal investigation of the clinic was arbitrary or unreasonable. However, the effect on the applicant’s right to private life of this act had been aggravated by the subsequent obstructive and oscillatory attitude of the responsible authorities which prevented the applicant from transferring her embryos to a specialist clinic despite her efforts. Nevertheless, though this was the case, the domestic courts had expressly acknowledged that the applicant had suffered a breach of her rights under Article   8 on account of the refusal by the authorities to allow the embryo transfer, and had offered her the required redress for the breach, which led to the transfer of the embryos in a relatively short time. Therefore the requisite steps had been taken to secure respect for the applicant’s right to respect for her private life. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). (See also Evans v. the United Kingdom [GC], no.   6339/05, 10   April 2007, Information Note no.   96 ; and S.H. and Others v.   Austria [GC], no.   57813/00, 3   November 2011, Information Note no.   146 )   © 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