TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
AP1 (Applicant): La lecture des différentes décisions internes qui sont produites à la procédure démontre qu'à aucun moment la situation du jeune Theodoro n'a été examinée par les juges qui ont prononcé ces décisions.
AP1 (Applicant): Ces juges italiens ne s'interrogent jamais sur l'environnement matériel dans lequel l'enfant évoluait, ni si ses parents prenaient soin de lui sur le plan matériel et affectif.
AP1 (Applicant): Il est à cet égard paradoxal d'avoir retiré l'enfant Theodoro au foyer des consorts Paradiso et Campanelli quand ces derniers avaient pourtant été considérés, suite à l'enquête menée par les services sociaux en 2006, fait par les services italiens pour apprécier leur capacité à adepter, comme un couple ayant une parfaite aptitude pour accueillir et élever un enfant dans les meilleures conditions.
AP1 (Applicant): En réalité, les compétences et l'amour qui étaient portés par les requérants à leur enfant n'est en aucune façon remis en cause.
AP1 (Applicant): Aucune critique n'était susceptible d'être avancée s'agissant de leur engagement parental pour élever le jeune Theodoro aux yeux du droit italien.
AP1 (Applicant): Les requérants sont coupables d'avoir contourné la loi.
AP1 (Applicant): Et c'est d'ailleurs l'essentiel, pour ne pas dire le seul reproche, qui a servi de motif aux différentes juridictions nationales qui sont intervenues pour arracher définitivement aux requérants leur enfant.
AP1 (Applicant): Vous le voyez, à l'examen, il n'existe aucune raison valable de vous départir de la décision qui a été rendue par la deuxième section dans cette affaire et qui a constaté la violation de l'Italie avec les exigences de l'article 8 de la Convention.
AP1 (Applicant): La sensibilité du sujet dont vous avez à traiter, comme la marge d'appréciation que vous avez d'ores et déjà reconnue, aux États pour légiférer sur ce point, ne doit pas vous conduire à abandonner votre propre jurisprudence en construction et en particulier à remettre en cause l'intérêt supérieur de ces enfants issus d'une gestation pour autrui, intérêt qui doit rester et demeurer l'aiguille de la boussole de votre jugement.
AP1 (Applicant): Ces enfants qui sont issus d'une gestation pour autrui n'ont pas demandé à naître.
AP1 (Applicant): N'en faites pas les victimes innocentes de législation qui veulent à tout prix leur interdire toute reconnaissance et tout statut au point, comme ici, comme l'Italie, de les arracher à leurs parents d'intention.
AP1 (Applicant): Des parents qui ont voulu ces enfants, qui les ont aimés, auprès desquels leur intérêt pour qu'ils puissent grandir et s'épanouir.
Luis López Guerra (JudgeP): Merci maître Spinosi.
Luis López Guerra (JudgeP): Salut, la parole est à madame Aversano.
GR2 (Government): Honourable President, Honourable Judges, With this request of a referral to the Grand Chamber, the Government has disputed the sentence delivered on 27 January 2015 by the Chamber.
GR2 (Government): The Government firmly believes that the disputed decision has not in depth assessed the seriousness and the unlawfulness on several legal counts of the applicant's conduct and the fragment violation of law for mere personal purpose, and it strongly highlights that this judgment has not appropriately assessed the subsequent action of the Italian authorities, which instead conducted the case exclusively aiming at the fair balance between the prior interest of the child and the general interest of the community as a whole to the respect of the law and of all the individuals involved in cases like this one, everything in perfect compliance with the Article 8 of the Convention.
GR2 (Government): In any case, for defensive purpose, this party recalls and refers to all its previous pleadings submitted before the Chamber and the Grand Chamber and renews all its claims of inadmissibility and unfoundedness in the merit of the applicant's complaints.
GR2 (Government): Just a brief reconstruction of facts underlying the present case.
GR2 (Government): At the beginning of the case was the alert to the Italian authorities by the Consulate of Italy, Moscow, where Mrs. Paradiso requested an ID for a child
GR2 (Government): showing a birth certificate by Russian authorities and a certificate of delivery that falsely reported her and her husband's name as parents of a child born in Moscow on 27 February 2011.
GR2 (Government): The subsequent request of a transcription of the Russian birth certificate was refused by the municipality due to the contrast with the public order and such act attesting false circumstances.
GR2 (Government): Due to the alert mentioned above against the applicant started a procedure before the juvenile court of Campobasso and a parallel criminal investigation by the prosecutor office of Larino.
GR2 (Government): The original version provided by the applicants, according to which in 2008, Mrs. Paradiso
GR2 (Government): would have gone to Russia bringing with her the salmon of the husband in view of a subsequent fertilization, as revealed manifestly not true.
GR2 (Government): As a matter of fact, the Italian judicial authorities assessed the following facts.
GR2 (Government): The lack of any evidentiary support to the applicant's allegations and the repeated attempts to mislead the authorities by providing always different versions of facts with a deliberate intent to conceal the truth about the conceiving of the child.
GR2 (Government): The obstinate aptitude of the applicants in continuing to support before the national authorities that there was a biological link with the child, even through suspicious and contradictory allegations.
GR2 (Government): The DNA test definitely excluding a biological link with the applicants.
GR2 (Government): The state of abandonment of the child in Italy at the no biological, neither legal parents, no relatives, and that also being refused by the woman who had given birth.
GR2 (Government): The overt inadequacy to the parental role of the applicants.
GR2 (Government): The latter, in fact, in 2006 were deemed eligible to be adoptive parents, but instead of following the legal procedures and receiving a child already quite grown up, they had preferred to circumvent the rules and rely on the services of a business company to satisfy their desire to have a newborn baby.
GR2 (Government): The deep seriousness of the applicant's responsibilities clearly emerges from the domestic proceedings well known to the court.
GR2 (Government): Among other acts, the Caesar order of the prosecutor Valerino offers a significant summary of the applicant's conduct and their manifest contradictions, referring to a medical report apparently released by Russian clinic dated 16 February 2011, which would indicate some medical checks of both spouses in 2010 in Moscow, and to a contract with the surrogate mother allegedly concluded and signed by both the applicants always in Moscow, always in 2010.
GR2 (Government): But as admitted by themselves, the applicants never went to Russia in 2010 and gave their consent to surrogacy by phone.
GR2 (Government): Therefore, the juvenile court, due to the violation of a law on the assisted reproduction technique with regards to the surrogacy whose provision has been confirmed by the constitutional court and the law on the adoption, deemed the applicants responsible for the illegal introduction in Italy of a baby totally extraneous to them and a coddling, licking of a concrete emotional and educational parental capacity.
GR2 (Government): Thus, in the pure interest of the child to live in an emotionally and legally healthier environment, the court adopted the only judicial measure possible under the law, ordering the removal of the baby from the applicants and appointed a guardian.
GR2 (Government): Subsequently, it also declared the lack of legitimation of the letter to be partisan proceedings for adoptability of the minor.
GR2 (Government): And even the chamber confirmed the absence of the applicants' legal standing before the court on behalf of the minor.
GR2 (Government): As to the criminal proceedings, the government points out that currently, the applicants have been indicted and are on trial before the criminal court, charged with the offenses of alteration of a civil status by use of false act, use of false public document, and violation of the adoption law for illicit reception of minor in exchange for money.
GR2 (Government): It clearly emerges from these circumstances that the applicants, in the attempts to provide exposed representation of facts more suitable to the different laws involved in the matter and their biological tie with the newborn, messed up with the versions and documents.
GR2 (Government): The government has the utmost respect for the feelings of the applicants, but must underline that we are not dealing with the case of a surrogate moth root or a heterologous fertilization, but with a contract having as object a human being, falling outside of any scheme of rules, Italian, Russian, and international.
GR2 (Government): From the Italian public order and international law viewpoint, the attempt of the spouses to bring in Italy a child born in Russia to a third woman was in breach of the rules, even due to the use of an ontologically false birth certificate underlying the false statement that it were the genetic parents of the child.
GR2 (Government): Indeed, it is a core principle of the Italian legal system that the mother is the woman who gives the birth.
GR2 (Government): Conferring parenthood exclusively in the presence of a biological link or an adoption order issued with the due procedural guarantees in the interest of all the vulnerable persons involved is the result of a precise political, ethical, and legal choice of the Italian state to pursue the interests of the child and fulfill its obligation of protection under Article 3 of the New York Convention of 1989.
GR2 (Government): So this is the choice of the protection, and it does not offer to the courts any discretionary power with respect to the single specific case.
GR2 (Government): Moreover, as recognized by the court in rulings on similar issues, although with the differences that will be briefly exposed in a while, the state has on the subject of surrogacy the broader margin of appreciation in consideration of the delicate ethical implications of such medical practice.
GR2 (Government): In light of the foregoing, the Italian government firmly reiterates that it could not at time and cannot now legitimize exposed effectual relationship between extraneous individuals descending from an unlawful behavior, even infringing the interests of the child concerned to its natural origins and genetic identity, also laid down in Article 8.
GR2 (Government): Thus, the government contests that a family lie, even de facto, cannot arise from a situation deeply flowed from its very foundations, and also contests the finding of the dispute decision that the actions of the Italian courts constituted an undue interference in the family life of the applicants, and that such interference does not respect the parameters of Article 8, paragraph 2.
GR2 (Government): The dissenting opinion attached to the decision has actually coached the legacy, complexity, and urgency of the situation, improperly considering the diligent conduct of Italian authorities in dealing with the case.
GR2 (Government): In a prompt five-month procedure, the assessment of courts led to the adoption of the only one measure possible under the law system, reaching the best balance between the protection of the public order and the prior interest of the child to be promptly assigned to a family legally and emotionally healthier environment.
GR2 (Government): Such a serious situation, in such fundamentally legal relationship inadequate to the child, could not be redressed with milder measures.
GR2 (Government): The chamber found the action of the authorities perfectly meeting all the requirements set out in Article 8, paragraph 2.
GR2 (Government): Thus, even more, the government contested the decision where it found disproportionate to the measure issued.
GR2 (Government): The government has demonstrated the present case actually consists of a deliberate choice of the applicants to bypass the Italian law and rely on a business company to conclude an agreement for the sale of a newborn that they could have never had under the Italian law and the UN Convention.
GR2 (Government): It's for these reasons and for the seriousness of the applicants' conduct that the government draws the attention of the court and warns it about the devastating consequences and the dramatic impact that the decision of a substantial endorsement of such behaviors could have in contrast with the international community starkly invoking a tighter regulation of the reproductive techniques and the consequences thereof.
GR2 (Government): A submission in our former pleadings of the court and in terms of the regulation of the measure and increase of rules-free procreative tourism, which could easily trespass on practices of children's sale and human trafficking.
GR2 (Government): I give the floor to my colleague, Professor Moritz.
GR1 (Government): Mr. President, Honorable Judges,
GR1 (Government): as my colleagues said before, Paradiso and Campanelli violated many rules during the whole surrogacy procedure.
GR1 (Government): About transportation, the transportation of Mr. Campanelli's seminal fluid
GR1 (Government): was affected in contravention of Italian law that does not allow import or export by private individuals, as Mrs. Campanelli did.
GR1 (Government): And about surrogacy, the applicant's memo repeatedly states that the lack of genetic ties with intentional parents was not considered unlawful under Russian surrogacy law, effective at the time the events took place.
GR1 (Government): The attempt of the defense is to invoke what is stipulated in Italian case law and laid down in attachment number 24 of the memorandum.
GR1 (Government): In all these cases, surrogacy, although a punishable offense in Italy, was never performed in violation of the laws of the country where the surrogacy delivery and issuing of a birth certificate took place.
GR1 (Government): Therefore, the defense states that the couple involved in the surrogacy arrangement, by applying for inclusion in the register of a document that was regularly issued abroad, attesting to an event that lawfully took place abroad, did not commit a crime.
GR1 (Government): The applicants also quote a ruling of the Cassation Court on a case similar to the one under scrutiny, a child born via a surrogating gift with no genetic link to the commissioning parents, but which had occurred in defiance of Ukrainian law that provides that at least one of the two commissioning parents be also the genetic parent.
GR1 (Government): In this latter case, the child born via surrogacy was taken from the commissioning parents and given up for adoption, as in the Paradiso Campanelli case.
GR1 (Government): In the opinion of the applicants, the rulings of individual Italian courts and of the Cassation Court seem to go the way of proving that if the surrogacy was carried out legally in a foreign country, the resulting child, once back in Italy, is to all intents and purposes the legal offspring of the commissioning couple, and therefore cannot be taken away from them.
GR1 (Government): The applicants states also that Russian law at the time did not stipulate on the need of a genetic connection between the resulting child and the commissioning parents, and therefore, as far as the surrogacy in question is concerned, this was not performed in violation of local laws, as in other cases that were not punished by Italian courts.
GR1 (Government): But surrogate motherhood, in the case at hand, took place in violation of Russian law for the following reason.
GR1 (Government): First, from the consent to surrogacy, one can conclude that the surrogate mother had consented to register the Paradiso Campanelli commissioning couple in the deed and birth certificate of the child she delivered because they were the two genetic parents of the child.
GR1 (Government): That is, the consent to surrogacy, without which Paradiso Campanelli could not have appeared in the certificate as parents of the resulting child, was issued on the basis of false information, and therefore, it is not valid.
GR1 (Government): I would like to underline that Paradiso and Campanelli are not the genetic parents.
GR1 (Government): Would the surrogate mother have given her consent had she known that the Italian couple had absolutely no connection to the child?
GR1 (Government): It should be also underlined that in Russian surrogacy law, the woman's consent is the core element.
GR1 (Government): In paragraph one of the article 51 of the Family Code of the Russian Federation, registration of the parents in birth records reads, citizens who are regularly married and have given their written consent to the implantation of an embryo of another woman for the purpose of gestation may be registered as parents in the civil status records only with the consent of the woman, the surrogate mother, who has given birth to the child.
GR1 (Government): Furthermore, federal law number 133, civil status records, article 16, about child birth statement, says that in the event of state registration of the birth of the child by the couple who had given their prior consent to the implant of the embryo of another woman for the purpose of gestation, in order to register the couple as parents of the child, in addition to the document confirming the birth of the child, it is also necessary to submit the certificate issued by the health care facility confirming receipt of the consent given by the woman who delivered the child, that is the surrogate mother.
GR1 (Government): And then, in addition, the contract, paragraph three, states that compensation for the service should be paid following the events here under, among which, the appraisal report of the parental relationship of the above indicated child.
GR1 (Government): It does appear that the appraisal of some biological link of the child resulting from the surrogacy to the commission in parents was included in the contract.
GR1 (Government): But from the documents included in the memorandum, it does not seem that any such appraisal was carried out.
GR1 (Government): In addition, had this occurred, the document would have attested to the total absence of any biological link with the commissioning couple.
GR1 (Government): And then, moreover, from the decree of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation of February the 26th, 2003, under the heading embryo donation, it is specified that embryos intended for donations may also be obtained as the result of fertilization of all sites of donors with the sperm of a donor.
GR1 (Government): This means that supernumerary embryos already formed and cryopreserved from parents who have not used them from their own parental project may be donated, as well as embryos formed with a so-called double heterologous or double donation procedure.
GR1 (Government): In other terms, a heterologous donation in which both components of the couple are infertile and resort to donor sperm and oocytes is envisaged in the Russian embryo donation regulations.
GR1 (Government): This is the actual situation, not declared, but very real, of the Paradiso Campanelli case, in which surrogacy was concretely performed by means of embryos that were not genetically related to the couple.
GR1 (Government): So they could have carried out a legal double donation procedure, but they chose to perform another procedure, that is, the one in which only oocytes are donated.
GR1 (Government): For the conclusion, I give the floor to my colleague, Ms. Teta Tornay and Mrs. Palmieri.
Luis López Guerra (JudgeP): Palmieri.
GR3 (Government): Merci.
GR3 (Government): Les interventions des collègues et de mes collègues ont bien mis en évidence les points essentiels et importants de la question qui aujourd'hui est à l'examen de la Cour.
GR3 (Government): Un PMR lieu, une réconstruction du développement des procès et de l'histoire judiciaire, qui est la preuve que la demande du gouvernement italien est bien fondée.
GR3 (Government): Ensuite, un poids technique, une réconstruction en détails précis, complète.
GR3 (Government): Il faut souligner qu'avec la demande de renvoi, le gouvernement italien a révélé que la 2e chambre, en examinant l'affaire, seulement sous l'angle de l'article 8 de la Convention, a donné une interprétation trop extensive de l'article 8, alinéa premier, sur les droits de la vie familière et privée.
GR3 (Government): Et une interprétation trop restrictive de l'article 8, 2e alinéa, qui préserve la marge d'appréciation de l'Etat comme appliquée essentiellement dans l'intérêt supérieur du mineur, et surtout n'a pas considéré les comportements illégaux des récréants, contraire à la législation italienne sur la gestation pour autrui, et leurs conséquences juridiques à la loi italienne sur l'adoption et aux dispositions de l'adoption internationale.
GR3 (Government): En ce moment, il n'est pas nécessaire de répéter simplement les mêmes argumentations que nous avons déjà soumises à l'attention de la Cour.
GR3 (Government): Il s'agit plus exactement de souligner les aspects les plus importants et significatifs pour reconstruire le vrai cadre juridique de la question.
GR3 (Government): On peut affirmer qu'il y a trois points de la règle de la Chambre qu'il faut considérer surtout.
GR3 (Government): En premier, la notion de vie familiale.
GR3 (Government): Puis l'application de principes et intérêts supérieurs aux mineurs de l'enfant.
GR3 (Government): La reconnaissance, enfin, d'une large marge d'appréciation réservée à l'Etat.
GR3 (Government): Les points les plus délicats, le noeud de la question de la décision de la Chambre, regardent la déclaration de l'existence d'une vie familiale et les conseils même de vie familiale au sens de l'article 8 de la Convention.
GR3 (Government): Une interprétation si évolutive de l'article 8 et si inspirée par une grande identité de vue de la vie familiale peut entraîner un impact significatif dans les droits internes.
GR3 (Government): Grande préoccupation pour la force expansive, essentiellement pour l'interprétation illimitée de la notion qui peut inclure dans les concepts même de vie familiale non seulement des relations de facto et de courte durée, mais directement des relations qui sont illégalement établies selon le droit national.
GR3 (Government): Il faut souligner qu'à la différence des cas mentionnés dans l'arrêt de la Chambre et dans l'observation des récréants, dans l'affaire Paradiso-Campanelli, il n'y a aucun lien génétique entre les deux récréants.
GR3 (Government): La question fondamentale dans cette affaire consiste à évaluer la nécessité d'enlèvement et de mise sous protection de l'enfant.
GR3 (Government): Comme nous avons bien déjà démontré, les mesures judiciaires avaient été organisées par les juridictions italiennes puisque l'enfant a été considéré comme dépourvu d'un environnement familial approprié.
GR3 (Government): Né des parents biologiques inconnus, la mère porteuse lui avait rénoncé et les récréants avaient mis en place une situation d'illégalité.
GR3 (Government): Les mesures adoptées par les juges italiennes répondent donc au but de mettre fin à une situation illégalitaire et d'illégalité.
GR3 (Government): La notion d'intérêt dans l'enfant n'est pas prévue expressement par la Convention, mais continue dans d'autres instruments internationaux.
GR3 (Government): Elle est néanmoins dans le cœur de la jurisprudence de la Cour, nous savons.
GR3 (Government): Elle est cependant difficile à cerner car elle n'est pas précisément définie.
GR3 (Government): Son utilisation, comme l'apprimeur de l'intérêt supérieur de l'enfant, du mineur, souvent critiquée par la doctrine, peut aboutir à des résultats très différents selon ses affaires, à des solutions contradictoires parfois.
GR3 (Government): Elle peut ainsi sévir tout, ou comme dit la doctrine, tout et son contraire.
GR3 (Government): Cela témoigne bien de l'ambivalence inhérente à la science d'une définition précise de la notion elle-même.