CEDH · PRESS;HEARINGS;ENG — 28 février 2008

.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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .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 } .sA8C2B9B0 { width:20.37pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   141 28.2.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER HEARING S. H. AND OTHERS v. AUSTRIA   The European Court of Human Rights is holding a Chamber hearing today Thursday 28   February 2008 at 9 a.m. , on the merits in the case of S. H. and Others v. Austria (application no. 57813/00).   The hearing will be broadcast from 2.30 p.m. on the Court’s Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).     The applicants   The four applicants, all Austrian nationals, are: S. H. and D. H., who are married and live in L. (Austria); and, H. E.-G. and M. G., who are also married and live in R.   (Austria).   Summary of the facts   S.H. suffers from fallopian tube-related infertility ( eileiterbedingter Sterilität ). D.H. is also infertile. H. E.-G. suffers from agonadism ( Gonadendysgenesie ), which means that she does not produce ova and is completely infertile, although she has a fully developed uterus. M.G. can produce sperm fit for procreation.   On 4 May 1998 S. H and H. E.-G. filed a request ( Individualantrag ) with the Constitutional Court ( Verfassungsgerichtshof ) applying for a review of the constitutionality of section 3   §§   1 and   2 of the Artificial Procreation Act ( Fortpflanzungsmedizingesetz ). Under section 3   §   1 of the act, only ova and sperm from spouses or from those living in a relationship similar to marriage ( Lebensgefährten ) can be used for medically-assisted procreation. The only exception, under section 3   §   2, is that sperm from a third person can be used for artificial insemination when introducing sperm into the reproductive organs of a woman. In all other circumstances, and in particular for the purpose of in vitro fertilisation, the use of sperm by donors is prohibited [1] .   S.H. argued that the only means of conception open to her and her husband would be in vitro fertilisation using sperm from a donor. H. E.-G. submitted that she would have to resort to a medical technique known as heterologous embryotransfer, which would entail implanting into her uterus an embryo conceived with ova from a donor and sperm from M.G. They argued that the prohibition of those two heterologous artificial procreation techniques for in vitro fertilisation under the Artificial Procreation Act was a breach of their rights under Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights. They also relied on Article   12 (right to found a family) of the Convention and on Article   7 of the Austrian Federal Constitution, which guarantees equal treatment.   On 14   October 1999 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicants’ case. They found that there was an interference with Article 8, but that it was justified on the ground that the aim was to avoid the forming of unusual personal relations such as a child having more than one biological mother (a genetic mother and one carrying the child) and to avoid the risk of exploitation of women.   Complaints   The applicants complain about the prohibition of heterologous artificial procreation techniques for in vitro fertilisation, relying on Articles 8 and 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   Procedure   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 8   May 2000 and declared partly admissible on 15   November 2007.   Composition of the Court   The case will be heard by a Chamber composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greek), President , Nina Vajić (Croatian), Anatoli Kovler (Russian), Elisabeth Steiner (Austrian), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijani), Sverre Erik Jebens (Norwegian), Giorgio Malinverni (Swiss), judges , Dean Spielmann (Luxemburger), George Nicolaou (Cypriot), substitute judges , and also André Wampach , Deputy Section Registrar .   Representatives of the parties   Government :   Brigitte Ohms , Agent ,   Barbara Grosse , Michael Stormann , Irene Hager-Ruhs , Counsel ;   Applicants :   Hubert Kinz , Wilfried Ludwig Weh , Counsel .     ***   After the hearing the Court will begin its deliberations, which are held in private. Judgment will be delivered at a later date [2] .   Press contacts Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 91) Sania Ivedi (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 59 45)   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. [1] As far as can be seen the same situation as in Austria exists under Swedish and Norwegian law and, although not easy to compare, under German law. Donation of sperm is prohibited in Italy, Lithuania, and Turkey, and ovum donation in a larger number of European countries, namely Croatia, Germany, Italy, Lithuania, Norway, Switzerland and Turkey.   [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.