CEDH · PRESS;HEARINGS;ENG — 27 septembre 2005

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s69BE285C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:85.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-85.05pt } .s9A223E1B { width:11.03pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s595A57E4 { width:85.05pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s3CED24E9 { width:27.05pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s9F8EB0C0 { width:18.63pt; display:inline-block } .s9E97F54A { width:85.05pt; display:inline-block } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   494 27.9.2005   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER HEARING EVANS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM   The European Court of Human Rights is holding a Chamber hearing today Tuesday 27   September 2005 at 9.30 a.m., on the admissibility and merits in the case of Evans v. the United Kingdom (application no. 6339/05).   The applicant   Natallie Evans is a British national who was born in 1971 and lives in Wiltshire (United Kingdom).   Summary of the facts   She was diagnosed with a pre-cancerous condition of her ovaries in October 2001 and was offered one cycle of in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment prior to the surgical removal of her ovaries.   She and her then fiancé, J., underwent a course of treatment from October to November 2001. Prior to commencing the treatment, the applicant considered whether she should explore other means of having her remaining eggs fertilised, for example by the use of donor sperm, to guard against the possibility of her relationship with J. ending. He reassured her that that would not happen and, on the strength of that assurance, she permitted all her eggs to be fertilised with his sperm. Six embryos are stored as a result of that treatment.   In May 2002, the relationship between the applicant and J. ended and subsequently, in accordance with the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, he withdrew his consent to the continued storage of the embryos or use of them by the applicant, with the result that the clinic cannot continue to store them.   The applicant brought proceedings before the High Court seeking, among other things , an injunction to require J. to restore his consent. Her claim was refused on 1 October 2003 and, on 1 October 2004, the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s judgment. Leave to appeal was refused.   On 26 January 2005 the clinic informed the applicant that it was under a legal obligation to destroy the embryos, and intended to do so on 23   February 2005.   On 22 February 2005 the European Court of Human Rights, to whom the applicant had applied, requested, under Rule 39 (Interim measures) of the Rules of Court, that the United Kingdom Government take appropriate measures to prevent the embryos being destroyed by the clinic before the Court had been able to examine the case. The embryos have not been destroyed.   The applicant, for whom the embryos represent her only chance of bearing a child to which she is genetically related, has undergone successful treatment for her pre-cancerous condition and is medically fit to continue with implantation of the embryos. It is understood, that the clinic is willing to treat her, subject to J.’s consent.   Complaints   The applicant complains that requiring the father’s consent for the continued storage and implantation of the fertilised eggs is in breach of her rights under Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights and the rights of the embryos, under Article 2 (right to life).   Procedure   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 18 February 2005.   Composition of the Court   The case will be heard by a Chamber composed as follows:   Josep Casadevall (Andorran), President , Nicolas Bratza (British), Matti Pellonpää (Finnish), Rait Maruste (Estonian), Kristaq Traja (Albanian), Ljiljana Mijović (Citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina), Ján Šikuta (Slovakian), judges , Giovanni Bonello (Maltese), Stanislav Pavlovschi (Moldovan), Javier Borrego Borrego (Spanish), substitute judges , and also Michael O’Boyle , Section Registrar .   Representatives of the parties   Government :   Emily Wilmott , Agent ,   Philip Sales , Jason Coppel , Counsel ,   Karen Arnold , Gwen Skinner , Advisers ;   Applicant :   Robin Tolson , Susan Freeborn, Muiris Lyons, Counsel.   The applicant, Natallie Evans, will also attend the hearing.     ***   After the hearing the Court will begin its deliberations, which are held in private. A decision on admissibility, followed if appropriate by a judgment, will be delivered at a later date.   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Press contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54)   Beverley Jacobs (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21) Fax: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. Since 1 November 1998 it has sat as a full-time Court composed of an equal number of judges to that of the States party to the Convention. The Court examines the admissibility and merits of applications submitted to it. It sits in Chambers of 7 judges or, in exceptional cases, as a Grand Chamber of 17 judges. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe supervises the execution of the Court’s judgments. More detailed information about the Court and its activities can be found on its Internet site.