header-logo header-logo

27 April 2007
Issue: 7270 / Categories: Case law , Law reports
printer mail-detail

Human rights—Embryo—Frozen stored embryos

Evans v United Kingdom (App. No. 6339/05), [2007] All ER (D) 109 (Apr)

European Court of Human Rights, Grand Chamber

Judges Rozakis (President), Costa, Bratza, Zupancic, Lorenzen, Turmen, Butkevych, Vajic, Tsatsa-Nikolovska, Baka, Kovler, Zagrebelsky, Mularoni, Spielmann, Jaeger, Thor Bjorgvinsson and Ziemele, and Mr E Fribergh (Registrar)

10 April 2007

Where the issue is one of the right to respect for the decision to become a parent in the genetic sense, the margin of appreciation to be afforded to the respondent state under Art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) has to be a wide one.

The applicant had to have both ovaries removed, but she and her partner, J, were informed that it would be possible first to extract some eggs for in vitro fertilisation (IVF) if the procedure was carried out quickly. Both the applicant and J signed a form consenting to the IVF treatment and that, in accordance with the provisions of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 (HFEA 1990), it would be possible for either to withdraw

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll