CASE OF PARRILLO v. ITALY
Hearing: Parillo v. Italy (no. 46470/11) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2014-06-18 00:00:00)
Application no.: 46470/11
Document type: GRANDCHAMBER
Document date: 2015-08-27 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2015:0827JUD004647011
Respondent state: ITA
Articles of the Convention: 8;8-1;8-2;34;35;35-1
Judges: András Sajó;Ann Power-Forde;Dean Spielmann;Dmitry Dedov;Ganna Yudkivska;George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Ineta Ziemele;Josep Casadevall;Julia Laffranque;Mark Villiger;Nebojša Vučinić;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Peer Lorenzen;Vincent A. De Gaetano
Represented by: PAOLETTI N. ; SARTORI C. ; PAOLETTI N.
Issue: Section 13 of Law no. 40/2004 of 19 February 2004, in force since 10 March 2004 (“Rules governing medically assisted fertilisation”)
Strasbourg case-law cited: A, B and C v. Ireland [GC], no. 25579/05, ECHR 2010;Ali Koçintar v. Turkey (dec.), no. 77429/12, 1 July 2014;Beyeler v. Italy [GC], no. 33202/96, § 100, ECHR 2000 I;Broniowski v. Poland [GC], no. 31443/96, § 129, ECHR 2004 V;Brozicek v. Italy, no. 10964/84, 19 December 1989, § 34, Series A no. 167;C.G.I.L. and Cofferati v. Italy, no. 46967/07, § 48, 24 February 2009;Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28957/95, § 85, ECHR 2002 VI;Çınar v. Turkey, no. 17864/91, decision of the Commission of 5 September 1994;Costa and Pavan v. Italy, no. 54270/10, 28 August 2012;Dickson v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 44362/04, § 78, ECHR 2007 V;Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, 22 October 1981, § 41, Series A no. 45;Evans v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 6339/05, ECHR 2007 I;Fretté v. France, no. 36515/97, § 41, ECHR 2002 I;Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 39794/98, § 69, ECHR 2002 VII;Grišankova and Grišankovs v. Latvia (dec.), no. 36117/02, ECHR 2003 II (extracts);Hasan Uzun v. Turkey (dec.), no. 10755/13, §§ 25-27, 30 April 2013;Iatridis v. Greece [GC], no. 31107/96, § 54, ECHR 1999 II;Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], no. 22774/93, § 42, ECHR 1999 V;K. and T. v. Finland [GC], no. 25702/94, § 154, ECHR 2001 VII;Knecht v. Romania, no. 10048/10, 2 October 2012;Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, § 52, ECHR 2004 IX;Kutzner v. Germany, no. 46544/99, § 65, ECHR 2002 I;Leandro Da Silva v. Luxembourg, no. 30273/07, §§ 40 and 42, 11 February 2010;M.C. and Others v. Italy, no. 5376/11, § 47, 3 September 2013;McFarlane v. Ireland [GC], no. 31333/06, 10 September 2010;Melnītis v. Latvia, no. 30779/05, § 50, 28 February 2012;Mifsud v. France (dec.) [GC], no. 57220/00, § 15, ECHR 2002 VIII;Norris v. Ireland, 26 October 1988, Series A no. 142;Olsson v. Sweden (no. 1), 24 March 1988, § 68, Series A no. 130;P., C. and S. v. the United Kingdom, no. 56547/00, § 114, ECHR 2002 VI;Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, § 61, ECHR 2002 III;S.A.S. v. France ([GC], no. 43835/11, ECHR 2014 (extracts);S.B. and Others v. Belgium (dec.), no. 63403/00, 6 April 2004;S.H. and Others v. Austria ([GC], no. 57813/00, ECHR 2011;Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], no. 10249/03, § 75, 17 September 2009;Union Alimentaria Sanders SA v. Spain, no. 11681/85, 11 December 1987 DR 54, pp. 101 and 104;Vallianatos and Others v. Greece ([GC], nos. 29381/09 and 32684/09, § 54, ECHR 2013 (extracts);Vallianatos and Others v. Greece [GC], nos. 29381/09 and 32684/09, §§ 52-58, ECHR 2013 (extracts);Vučković and Others v. Serbia [GC], no. 17153/11, §§ 69-77, 25 March 2014;W. v. Germany, no.10785/84, 18 July 1986, Decisions and Reports (DR) 48, p. 104;X, Y and Z v. the United Kingdom, 22 April 1997, § 44, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997 II
External sources: Articles 18 and 27 of the “Oviedo Convention”;Opinion no. 15, adopted on 14 November 2000 by the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies to the European Commission;Resolution 1352 (2003) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on Human Stem Cell Research;Regulation (EC) No. 1394 / 2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on advanced therapy medicinal products contain similar provisions
Conclusion: Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Six month period);Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 34 - Victim);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