Vidal Martínez Jaime
Universitat de València, Valencia, España.
Rev Derecho Genoma Hum. 2011 Jan-Jun(34):155-201.
The judgment of ECHR 2010/56 responds positively the appeal on the part of four Austrian citizens (two married couples) against the Austrian state. The applicants complained that the prohibition of sperm and ova donation for in vitro fertilisation as established in the Austrian Law of 1992 amounts to discrimination, against article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights in conjunction with article 8, which establishes that everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life. After a detailed exposition of the circumstances surrounding this case, the author examines the origin of the practices of artificial insemination and IVF. The author highlights the transcendence of questions linked to extracorporeal fertilisation and human embryology and looks at the European regulation and the doctrine of reproductive rights, paying attention to the widespread use of the abovementioned techniques in the globalised world and the transborder practices in the European territories. The author points out that the current implementation of assisted reproduction techniques and the lack of uniform regulation in the European context might have influenced the above judgment of the ECHR 2010/56, which pronounced that the 1992 Austrian Law of Artificial Reproduction was not in accordance with article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, contrary to the judgment passed by the Austrian Constitutional Court eleven years earlier. It was not questioned, and so it was established by the ECHR, that the applicants right to use assisted reproduction techniques is protected by article 8 of the Convention. However, this does not make the estate liable to allow or regulate the abovementioned practices as long as this does not result in discrimination. According to the author, the right to resort to artificial reproduction techniques is contingent and therefore different from the freedom to procreate that is inherent to the human person, and covered under the right of men and women to marry and found a family warranted by article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
欧洲人权法院2010/56号判决对四名奥地利公民（两对已婚夫妇）针对奥地利国家的上诉作出了肯定回应。申请人抱怨称，1992年奥地利法律中禁止为体外受精进行精子和卵子捐赠的规定构成歧视，违反了《欧洲人权公约》第14条以及第8条，后者规定每个人都有权尊重其私人生活和家庭生活。在详细阐述了该案件的相关情况后，作者审视了人工授精和体外受精做法的起源。作者强调了与体外受精和人类胚胎学相关问题的超越性，并探讨了欧洲的相关规定以及生殖权利学说，同时关注上述技术在全球化世界中的广泛应用以及欧洲领土上的跨境做法。作者指出，目前辅助生殖技术的实施情况以及欧洲范围内缺乏统一规定可能对欧洲人权法院2010/56号的上述判决产生了影响，该判决判定1992年奥地利人工生殖法不符合《欧洲人权公约》第14条，这与奥地利宪法法院十一年前作出的判决相反。欧洲人权法院认定，申请人使用辅助生殖技术的权利受《公约》第8条保护，这一点没有受到质疑。然而，只要不导致歧视，国家就没有义务允许或规范上述做法。作者认为，诉诸人工生殖技术的权利是有条件的，因此不同于人类固有的生育自由，后者涵盖在《欧洲人权公约》第12条所保障的男女结婚和建立家庭的权利之中。
