scholarly journals The ECtHR’s first advisory opinion: Implications for cross-border surrogacy involving male intended parents

2021 ◽  
pp. 096853322110025
Author(s):  
Lydia Bracken

This article examines the content and scope of the European Court of Human Rights’s first advisory opinion as regards the practice of cross-border surrogacy in Europe. While the advisory opinion concerns the recognition of the legal parentage of an intended mother, this article considers whether the reasoning could be applied to male couples who avail of surrogacy. It is argued that the non-genetically related intended father in the male couple is in a directly comparable position to the non-genetically related intended mother in the opposite-sex couple for the purpose of legal parentage following surrogacy.

Pravni zapisi ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 620-644
Author(s):  
Tamás Korhecz

The right to peaceful enjoyment of property is a first-generation human right, protected by the international and domestic law of the highest rank. This is not an absolute right - the European standards of protecting property rights allow possible interferences prescribed by law. The interferences can be made in the public interest but only under the assumption that the proportionality between the public interest and property rights of individuals at stake is established. Forfeiture of undeclared cash the individuals are transferring across state borders, together with imposing fines for a misdemeanor, represent an interference with individuals' property rights. The EU Member States do not share an identical system of sanctions for this petty offense, but there is a tendency of unification related to the monitoring, registering, and sanctioning of undeclared, cross-border, individual cash transfer. The case-law of the European Court of Human Rights has established rather precise criteria for distinguishing permitted from unpermitted interferences in cases of undeclared cross-border cash transfers. The Serbian Constitutional Court has been faced with several constitutional complaints regarding alleged unconstitutionally of the imposed security measure amounting to the forfeiture of undeclared cash physically transferred across the state borders. The Constitutional Court has ruled inconsistently on the matter. Although it has regularly referred to the European Court of Human Rights' relevant decisions, it fails to be consistent in following the Strasbourg Court's rulings. In this article, the author has suggested that the legal certainty principle requires the Constitutional Court to consistently interpret the constitutional rights and be systematic in following Strasbourg. Only in this way, the Constitutional Court can help regular courts effectively to harmonize the interpretation and application of laws with the constitutional and international human rights standards regarding property rights.


2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 86
Author(s):  
Alfonso-Luis Calvo Caravaca

Abstract: The concept of “consumer” is, in theory, a restrictive concept. However, the ECJ has now extended it to cases in which a private individual has gone on to practice as a professional in an manifest, public and conspicuous manner. Judgment ECJ 25 January 2018, C-498/16, Facebook proves it. In relation to consumers of financial products, the ECJ skillfully pulls strings in the context of art. 7.2 BR I-bis; however, that norm is totally insensitive with regards to the consumer. The future is stepping forward towards online mass consumption, and in the present virtual social landscape it is necessary for the ECJ to open up new ways of protecting the consumer that keep up with times. In this context, it is necessary that future amendments to the Brussels I-bis Regulation incorporate the concepts that the ECJ has created in relation to jurisdiction in the cross-border consumer sector: the concepts of “act of consumption”, “consumer”, “professional”, and “directed activity”, for example, should stop being jurisprudential concepts to become legal concepts.Keywords: act of consumption, consumer, consumer contract, cross-border consumer sector, directed activity, dual contracts with both private and professional purpose, (international) jurisdiction, Private International Law, professional.Resumen: El concepto de “consumidor” es, en teoría, un concepto restrictivo. Sin embargo, el TJUE lo ha extendido a casos en los que un particular, en el momento presente, ha pasado a ejercer como profesional de manera evidente, pública y notoria. La STJUE 25 enero 2018, C-498/16, Facebook, es la prueba. En relación con los consumidores de productos financieros, el TJUE mueve sus hilos con destreza en el contexto del art. 7.2 RB I-bis, pero este precepto es totalmente insensible al consumidor. El futuro camina digitalmente hacia un consumo masivo online y en dicho paisaje social virtual es necesario que el TJUE abra vías de protección al consumidor de un modo evolutivo. En dicho contexto, es preciso que futuras reformas del Reglamento Bruselas I-bis incorporen los conceptos que el TJUE ha creado en relación con la competencia judicial en el sector del consumo transfronterizo: los conceptos de “acto de consumo”, “consumidor”, “profesional”, y “actividad dirigida”, por ejemplo, deberían dejar de ser conceptos jurisprudenciales para pasar a ser conceptos legales.Palabras clave: acto de consumo, competencia judicial internacional, consumidor, consumo transfronterizo, contrato de consumidores, contratos con doble finalidad profesional y privada, Derecho internacional privado, profesional, actividad dirigida.


2011 ◽  
Vol 12 (10) ◽  
pp. 1746-1763 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Lucy Cooper

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has been considering whether same-sex couples should have the rights to marry and to be recognized as a family under the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) for over thirty years. In the 1980s the European Commission of Human Rights (the Commission) and the ECtHR respectively rejected the notion that same-sex relationships constituted a “family life” under Article 8 of the ECHR, and that post-operative transgendered persons had the right to marry under Article 12. However, throughout the 1990s and the first decade of the new millennium, the ECtHR handed down a body of judgments that incrementally liberalized these rights (albeit not always smoothly) in favor of LGBT persons. This evolution culminated in part on 24 June 2010, when the ECtHR passed judgment inSchalk and Kopf v. Austria.In that case the First Section of the ECtHR made a number of major, but seemingly contradictory rulings. For the first time in its history, the ECtHR ruled that same-sex relationships expressly constitute a “family life” under Article 8, and that the right to marry under Article 12 was not confined to opposite-sex couples in “all circumstances.” However, the ECtHR simultaneously ruled that Member States are under no obligation to protect that “family life,” by providing same-sex couples with access to marriage under Article 12, or an alternative registration system under Articles 8 and 14. The Grand Chamber denied the applicants' subsequent request for a referral.


2002 ◽  
Vol 3 (8) ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Morawa

On 11 July 2002, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (Eur. Ct. H.R.) ruled unanimously in the cases of Goodwin and I v. the United Kingdom that the failure of British law to recognize gender re-assignment and to permit male to female transsexuals to marry persons of their newly opposite sex violated the applicants’ right to privacy (Article 8 ECHR) and to marry (Article 12). These two cases, apart from constituting an explicit deviation from previous constant jurisprudence, gave the Court (sitting as a Grand Chamber) an opportunity to creatively apply its longstanding interpretative principles, including the search for a ‘common European approach’ – now increasingly an ‘international trend’ –, in order to evolve human rights law. The following observations will focus on this aspect, while paying due attention to the other implications of the present cases. Finally, the two cases will be placed in the context of the current jurisprudence of the Court which, unfortunately, does not show a consistent tendency to progressively advance human rights law.


2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 205-210
Author(s):  
Yordanka Noneva-Zlatkova

AbstractWith the development of the internal market, the need to establish rules ensuring the protection of creditors in insolvency proceedings with a cross-border effect is increasing. Mechanisms at national level are difficult to provide the desired protection for foreign creditors. Since 26.06.2017 EU has a new Regulation 848/2015 which repeals the current Regulation 1346/2000. Despite the radical changes, it is attempting to implement this legislative act, the main objective of insolvency proceedings remains unchanged, namely, to achieve fair satisfaction of creditors. One of the mechanisms for the realisation of this objective are avoidance actions with international element for filling the insolvency estate. In view of the specifics of the procedure, the standard civil law mechanisms such as the Actio Pauliana are not impossible but are extremely inadequate and difficult to prove. In the practice of the Member States, many issues arise concerning the determination of jurisdiction and applicable law, creation of preconditions for the abuse in searching the most favourable legal system (forum shopping), there are differences in the so-called ‘suspicious periods’ and transactions concluded with affiliates. On this basis a fundamental jurisprudence of the CJEU has been enacted, the achievement of which will be the subject of this paper.


Author(s):  
Artem Ivanov ◽  
◽  
Eliza Shyhapova ◽  

This article is devoted to clarify the significance of the advisory opinions of the European Court of Human Rights as a recently improved institution. Thus, according to Article 1 of Protocol No. 16 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the highest judicial institutions of the High Contracting Party, as defined in accordance with Art. 10 may apply to the Court for advisory opinions on matters of principle concerning the interpretation or application of the rights and freedoms defined by the Convention or its protocols. Considering the fact that only two advisory opinions on the appeal of the member states of the Council of Europe have been published on the official website of the court, this topic is a new subject for research and requires a systematic study. Allowing states to seek advisory opinions was driven by the need to ease the burden on the European Court of Human Rights. However, given the novelty of the improved institute, this statement is still controversial. The article offers its own conclusions regarding the significance of the advisory opinions in the activities of the European Court, provides a view on the legal nature of this legal institution in the internal legal order of Ukraine. This was achieved by defining the essence of such a mechanism, analyzing primary sources from the official website of the court, statistical data on the functioning of the institution, and generalizing national legislation to determine the legal nature. Thus, although Ukraine has ratified Protocol No. 16, however, the legal status of such advisory opinions has not been determined. In this connection, it is proposed to amend a number of legislative acts, in particular, to article 17 of the Law of Ukraine "On the implementation and application of the practice of the European Court of Human Rights", which should be supplemented with the rule on the legal force of the advisory opinion of the European Court of Human Rights. According to the general importance of such an institution, it seems reasonable to hope for a decrease in the number of decisions that would contradict the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, and, accordingly, a decrease in the grounds for filing applications.


2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (5) ◽  
pp. 773-793
Author(s):  
Andrés Recalde-Castells ◽  
Antonio Roncero-Sánchez

The fight for the control of the Mediaset group has given rise to several judicial decisions issued in various national jurisdictions and even by the European Court of Justice. Three orders of Spanish Courts have been of particular interest. Two of them were issued by a Commercial Court in Madrid and the third one was issued on appeal by the Provincial Appeal Court Madrid. They instructed the suspension of the shareholders meeting resolutions of the Spanish Mediaset company approving a cross-border merger. The content of this resolution was to approve the acquisition of the Spanish company by another company domiciled in the Netherlands thus changing the applicable law. The resolution approving the merger was presumed (provisionally) to be abusive and, eventually, null and void. The decisions of the Spanish Court were grounded on the fact that the articles of association of the resulting Dutch company would be detrimental to the minority in the Spanish company. This limits the freedom of establishment (Art. 49 TFEU) and is based on a multilevel scrutiny, resulting from the national laws applicable to each company that participates in the merger. Those judicial decisions handled with other issues of interest in company law, such as the conclusive effect of the registration of a cross-border merger, the legitimation of the minority to challenge shareholders resolutions, or the effects of a shareholders meeting resolution replacing a previous merger resolution that has been challenged before the courts.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document