publication . Article . 2016

La reproducción asistida ante el Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos: De Evans c. Reino Unido a Parrillo c. Italia.

Farnós Amorós, Esther;
Open Access Spanish
  • Published: 01 Jan 2016
  • Publisher: Observatori de Bioètica i Dret - Cátedra UNESCO de Bioética
Although most of the European legal systems regulate assisted reproductive technologies, diversity among member states regarding highly sensitive questions remains (e.g., conditions for access to certain treatments; use of Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis in order to avoid a children’s genetic disease; resource to heterologous technologies with donated gametes; effects of international surrogacy arrangements; or the final destiny of cryopreserved embryos resulting from an “in vitro” fertilization cycle). The different approaches to these questions highlight the contrasting prevalent values endorsed by European countries. The European Court of Human Rights case-...
Persistent Identifiers
free text keywords: reproducción asistida, vida privada y familiar, margen de apreciación, turismo reproductivo, assisted reproductive technologies, private and family life, margin of appreciation, procreative tourism, bioethics; law, assisted reproductive technologies; private and family life; margin of appreciation; procreative tourism, bioética; derecho, reproducción asistida; vida privada y familiar; margen de apreciación; turismo reproductivo, Assisted reproductive technologies; private and family life; margin of appreciation; procreative tourism., Reproducción asistida; vida privada y familiar; margen de apreciación; turismo reproductivo., lcsh:Jurisprudence. Philosophy and theory of law, lcsh:K201-487, lcsh:Medical philosophy. Medical ethics, lcsh:R723-726
19 references, page 1 of 2

2. D'AMICO, M., “L'inconstituzionalità del divieto assoluto della c.d. fecondazione eterologa”, Rivista di BioDiritto 2/2014, pp. 13‐35.

3. VAN BEERS, B., “Is Europe 'Giving in to Baby Markets?' Reproductive tourism in Europe and the Gradual Erosion of Existing Legal Limits to Reproductive Markets”, Medical Law Review Vol. 23(1), 2014, pp. 103‐134.

4. BOMHOFF, J., ZUCCA, L., “The tragedy of Ms. Evans: Conflicts and Inconmesurability of Rights, Evans v. the United Kingdom, Fourth Section Judgement of 7 March 2006, Application No. 6339/05”, European Constitutional Law Review 2/2006, pp. 424‐442.

5. CASADEVALL, J., El Conveni europeu de drets humans, el Tribunal d'Estrasburg i la seva jurisprudència, Bosch, Barcelona, 2007.

6. COHEN, I.G., “S.H. and Others v. Austria and circumvention tourism”, 25 Reproductive BioMedicine Online 660, 2012.

7. FARNÓS AMORÓS, E., “La reproducción asistida ante el Tribunal de Estrasburgo: margen de apreciación v. necesidad de armonización”, en Benavente Moreda, P. / Farnós Amorós, E. (Dirs.), Treinta años de reproducción asistida en España: una mirada interdisciplinaria a un fenómeno global y actual (Estudio doctrinal), Boletín del Ministerio de Justicia, Núm.

8. FARNÓS AMORÓS, E., “Filiación derivada de reproducción asistida: voluntad y biología”, Anuario de Derecho Civil 2015, fasc. I, pp. 6‐59.

9. FARNÓS AMORÓS, E., Consentimiento a la reproducción asistida. Crisis de pareja y disposición de embriones, Atelier, Barcelona, 2011.

10. VAN HOOF, W., PENNINGS, G., “Extraterritorial Laws for Cross‐Border Reproductive Care: The Issue of Legal Diversity”, 19 European Journal of Health Law 187, 2012.

11. JACKSON, E., “S.H. and Others v. Austria”, 25 Reproductive Bio Medicine Online 663, 2012.

12. LIND, C., “Evans v United Kingdom - judgements of Solomon: power, gender and procreation”, Child and Family Law Quarterly 2006, Vol. 18(4), pp. 576‐592.

13. MURPHY, T., CUINN, G.O., “Works in Progress: New Technologies and the European Court of Human Rights”, Human Rights Law Review Vol. 10(4), 2010, pp. 601‐638.

14. PENASA, S., “Converging by procedures: Assisted reproductive technology regulation within the European Union”, Medical Law International 12(3‐4), 2013, pp. 300‐327.

15. PENASA, S., “The Italian regulation on Assisted Reproductive Technologies facing the European Court of Human Rights: the case of Costa and Pavan v. Italy”, Rev Der Gen H 37/2012, pp. 155‐180.

16. PENNINGS, G., “Legal harmonization and reproductive tourism in Europe”, Human Reproduction 2004, Vol. 19(12), pp. 2689‐2694.

19 references, page 1 of 2
Any information missing or wrong?Report an Issue