25 Dec Article 8 does not guarantee a right to become a grandparent

In the case of Petithory Lanzmann v. France (application no. 23038/19) the European Court of Human Rights has unanimously declared the application inadmissible. The case concerned the applicant’s request to have her deceased son’s sperm transferred to an establishment capable of arranging medically assisted reproduction or gestational surrogacy. 

The applicant’s son died on 13 January 2017 as a result of a cancerous tumour that was diagnosed in 2014. As soon as he was informed of his illness, her son had expressed his wish to be a father and to have offspring, including in the event of his death. In consequence, he had deposited sperm with the Centre d’études et de conservation des oeufs et du sperme (CECOS) at the Cochin Hospital in Paris, had contacted a centre in Switzerland and was considering other options for banking sperm abroad, but had been unable to proceed with those on account of his illness. In the spring of 2017 the president of the CECOS refused to transmit to the Biomedicine Agency a request by the applicant for the transfer of her son’s sperm to a healthcare establishment in Israel.

Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), the applicant complained that it was impossible to have access to her deceased son’s sperm with a view to arranging, in accordance with his last wishes, medically assisted reproduction via a donation to an infertile couple or gestational surrogacy, procedures which would be authorised in Israel or the United States.

The Court observed that the applicant’s complaint actually comprised two distinct parts. In the first part she claimed to be an indirect victim, on behalf of her late son, while in the second she claimed to be a direct victim since she had been deprived of the possibility of becoming a grandparent. With regard to the complaint alleging indirect victim status, the Court noted that the rights claimed by the applicant concerned her son’s right to decide how and when to become a parent. However, the Court observed that this right belonged to the category of non-transferable rights. Accordingly, the applicant could not claim in this regard to be the victim of a violation of the Convention on her son’s behalf. As to the complaint alleging direct victim status, the Court considered that Article 8 did not guarantee a right to become a grandparent, however worthy the applicant’s personal aspiration to continue the genetic line. The Court therefore declared both parts of the application inadmissible.

References from the official website of the European Court of Human Rights