School of Law, University of Limerick Castletroy, Limerick V94 T9PX Ireland.
Eur J Health Law. 2021 Nov 4;29(2):194-216. doi: 10.1163/15718093-bja10059.
The recent case of Valdís Fjölnisdóttir and Others v Iceland adds to the emerging ECtHR jurisprudence on cross-border surrogacy. It reinforces principles established in previous cases and, in doing so, clarifies the scope of the child's rights under Article 8 ECHR, and hence clarifies the scope of the obligations placed on Member States in cases of cross-border surrogacy. At the same time, consideration of Valdís Fjölnisdóttir reveals significant omissions in the approach adopted by the ECtHR as regards consideration of the rights of the child. In this way, aspects of Valdís Fjölnisdóttir confuse, rather than clarify, the scope of the child's Article 8 ECHR rights in cases of cross-border surrogacy. This article examines the Valdís Fjölnisdóttir judgment with a view to identifying emerging principles, as well as contradictions, in the developing body of jurisprudence relating to cross-border surrogacy.
最近的瓦尔迪丝·福约尼松多蒂尔和其他人诉冰岛案增加了欧洲人权法院关于跨境代孕的新兴判例法。它强化了以前案件确立的原则，并通过这样做，澄清了《欧洲人权公约》第 8 条下儿童权利的范围，从而澄清了成员国在跨境代孕案件中所承担的义务范围。同时，对瓦尔迪丝·福约尼松多蒂尔案的审议表明，欧洲人权法院在审议儿童权利方面采取的方法存在重大遗漏。这样，瓦尔迪丝·福约尼松多蒂尔案的某些方面混淆了，而不是澄清了跨境代孕案件中儿童《欧洲人权公约》第 8 条权利的范围。本文审查了瓦尔迪丝·福约尼松多蒂尔案的判决，以期确定与跨境代孕相关的不断发展的判例法中出现的原则和矛盾。
