CASE OF PARADISO AND CAMPANELLI v. ITALY
Hearing: Paradiso and Campanelli v. Italy (no. 25358/12) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2015-12-09 00:00:00)
Application no.: 25358/12
Document type: GRANDCHAMBER
Document date: 2017-01-24 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2017:0124JUD002535812
Respondent state: ITA
Articles of the Convention: 8;8-1;8-2;35
Judges: András Sajó;André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Dmitry Dedov;Egidijus Kūris;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Ledi Bianku;Luis López Guerra;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Nebojša Vučinić;Paul Lemmens;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Robert Spano;Síofra O'Leary;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Yonko Grozev
Represented by: SPINOSI P.
Issue: Private International Law Act (Law no. 218/1995) ; Articles 6, 8, 37bis and 72 of the Adoption Act (Law no. 184/1983) ; Medically Assisted Reproduction Act (Law no. 40/2004)

Strasbourg case-law cited: A, B and C v. Ireland [GC], no 25579/05, ECHR 2010;Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 62, Series A no 94;Anayo v. Germany, no 20578/07, § 61, 21 December 2010;Azinas v. Cyprus [GC], no 56679/00, § 32, ECHR 2004-III;Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no 38433/09, § 140, ECHR 2012;D. and Others v. Belgium (dec.), no 29176/13, § 49, 8 July 2014;Delfi AS v. Estonia [GC], no 64569/09, § 127, ECHR 2015;Dickson v. the United Kingdom [GC], no 44362/04, ECHR 2007-V;E.B. v. France [GC], no 43546/02, § 41, 22 January 2008;Evans v. the United Kingdom [GC], no 6339/05, ECHR 2007-I;Giusto, Bornacin and V. v. Italy (dec.), no 38972/06, 15 May 2007;Hämäläinen v. Finland [GC], no 37359/09, § 67, ECHR 2014;Johnston and Others v. Ireland, 18 December 1986, § 55, Series A no 112;K. and T. v. Finland [GC], no 25702/94, § 141, ECHR 2001-VII;Keegan v. Ireland, 26 May 1994, § 44, Series A no 290;Kopf and Liberda v. Austria, no 1598/06, § 37, 17 January 2012;Kopp v. Switzerland, 25 March 1998, § 59, Reports 1998-II;Kroon and Others v. the Netherlands, 27 October 1994, § 30, Series A no 297-C;Kruslin v. France, 24 April 1990, § 29, Series A no 176-A;Kutzner v. Germany, no 46544/99, §§ 67-82, ECHR 2002 I;Labassee v. France, no 65941/11, 26 June 2014;Marckx v. Belgium, 13 June 1979, § 31, Series A no 31;Mennesson v. France, no 65192/11, ECHR 2014 (extracts);Mikulić  v. Croatia, no 53176/99, § 53, ECHR 2002-I;Moretti and Benedetti v. Italy, no 16318/07, § 48, 27 April 2010;Nazarenko v. Russia, no 39438/13, § 58, ECHR 2015 (extracts);Neulinger and Shuruk v. Switzerland [GC], no 41615/07, § 136, ECHR 2010;Niemietz v. Germany, 16 December 1992, § 29, Series A no 251-B;Nylund v. Finland (dec.), no 27110/95, ECHR 1999-VI;Olsson v. Sweden (no 1), 24 March 1988, § 54, Series A no 130;Parrillo v. Italy [GC], no 46470/11, § 168, ECHR 2015;Pini and Others v. Romania, nos. 78028/01 and 78030/01, § 148, ECHR 2004 V (extracts);Pontes v. Portugal, no 19554/09, §§ 74-80, 10 April 2012;Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no 28341/95, § 52, ECHR 2000-V;S.H. and Others v. Austria [GC], no 57813/00, ECHR 2011;Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, §§ 148-151, ECHR 2000 VIII;Wagner and J.M.W.L. v. Luxembourg, no 76240/01, § 117, 28 June 2007;X v. Latvia [GC], no 27853/09, § 107, ECHR 2013;X and Y v. the Netherlands, 26 March 1985, § 22, Series A no 91;X, Y and Z v. the United Kingdom, 22 April 1997, § 36, Reports 1997 II;X. v. Switzerland, no 8257/78, decision of the Commission of 10 July 1978, Decisions and Reports 5;Y.C. v. the United Kingdom, no 4547/10, §§ 133-138, 13 March 2012;Zhou v. Italy, no 33773/11, § 55, 21 January 2014
External sources: Article 5 of the Hague Convention Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents of 5 October 1961;Article 3 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child of 20 November 1989;(Russia) Article 51 § 4 of the Family Code;(Russia) Basic Law on the Protection of Citizens’ Health, enacted on 21 November 2011 and entered into force on 1 January 2012

Conclusion: Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)
Separate opinion: TRUE