Help others to be mothers - please sign and share the Progress Educational Trust's petition, calling on the UK Government to #ExtendTheLimit on social egg freezing
Page URL: https://www.bionews.org.uk/page_89968

European court rules against Natallie Evans in frozen embryo case

7 March 2006
By BioNews
Appeared in BioNews 349

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has issued its judgment in the case of Evans v the United Kingdom. Natallie Evans, a British woman seeking the right to be able to use her own frozen IVF embryos, asked the court last September to rule whether UK law preventing her using stored frozen embryos, created using her former partner's sperm, violated her human rights under Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 14 (freedom from discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights. She also asked the ECHR to consider whether the embryos themselves had a right to life under Article 2.

On 7 March, the ECHR unanimously ruled that there had been no violation of Article 2 concerning the actual embryos; unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 14 concerning the way Ms Evans was treated by the law; and, by five votes to two, that there had been no violation of Article 8. The ECHR found that the UK was not obliged to take positive legislative steps to ensure that a woman who begins IVF treatment in order to have a genetically-related child should be permitted to implant embryos after the withdrawal of consent by her former partner. It said that the UK's legislation had 'struck a fair balance' between the competing interests at stake, including those of the community as a whole, which is entitled to have laws giving 'certainty' in what is often a contentious area of medicine. It said that because there is little consensus across EU member states as to how this area should be regulated, the UK government enjoys a 'wide margin of appreciation' when deciding what its own laws should be. The court pointed out that having a clear or 'bright line' approach - that helps to create certainty and maintain public confidence in the law - is desirable. However, it did point out that this 'bright line' did not necessarily have to be drawn at the point of continued storage or use of frozen embryos, but could be drawn elsewhere, such as at the point of creation of the embryo. Or, said the court, it would be possible to legislate to say that such consent should become irrevocable - in any case, it said, 'a fairer balance' could arguably be struck.

The court went on to conclude that because there had been no violation of the right granted under article 8, it was unnecessary to consider whether - as a result of the breach of her Article 8 rights - she had in fact been discriminated against, contrary to Article 14.

Two of the seven judges - Judges Traja and Mijovic - dissented on the Article 8 point, saying that the majority decision 'gave excessive weight to public policy considerations and to the State's margin of appreciation without paying due attention to the nature of the individual rights in conflict'. They said that the right to IVF procreation had a 'higher ranking value' and therefore deserved 'a fairer balancing than that struck by the 1990 Act' and that the exceptional nature of Ms Evans' case - the fact it affects 'the very core' of her right - should have warranted a 'deeper consideration', as not to do so is 'unacceptable under the Convention'. In short, they argued that 'the dilemma between Natallie's right to have a child and her former partner's right not to become a father should not be resolved on the basis of such a rigid scheme and the blanket enforcement by the UK law of one party's withdrawal of consent'. They said that the withdrawal of one party's consent should generally be taken to prevail, except in situations where the other party has no other means to have a genetically-related child and has no existing children.

The embryos in question were created in 2001 using Ms Evans' own eggs and sperm from her then partner, Howard Johnston, who later withdrew his consent to their use. The UK's law, in the form of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology (HFE) Act 1990, requires continued consent from both parties in order for embryos to be used or remain in storage. A withdrawal of consent means that the embryos should be destroyed. The embryos represent Ms Evans' last chance to have her own biologically related child, as her ovaries were removed when they were found to be cancerous. It was at this point that she also agreed to store embryos created with her partner's sperm - rather than freezing her eggs or using donor sperm to create embryos. At a hearing last year, permission was granted to keep the embryos in storage while the human rights case was heard and until an outcome was finalised, a legal process that normally takes several years. However, the ECHR expedited Ms Evans' claim because of the exceptional nature of the case.

The ECHR ended its judgment by saying that parties had the ability to ask that the case be heard by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights. In a statement to the press, Muiris Lyons, the solicitor acting for Ms Evans, said that this, along with the fact that the five majority judges expressed their 'great sympathy for the plight of Natallie', and the strength of the dissenting judgment, had convinced her to request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber. 'This will involve us applying on her behalf for the case to be referred', he said, adding 'her application will then be considered by a panel of 5 new judges who will decide whether or not to refer the case to the Grand Chamber. If Natallie is successful then her case will be considered by the Grand Chamber which consists of 17 judges'. In its ruling, the ECHR also reminded the UK Government that it must take appropriate measures to ensure that Natallie Evans' embryos are not destroyed until the judgment became final or pending any further order.

SOURCES & REFERENCES
Press release issued by the Registrar: CHAMBER JUDGMENT EVANS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
ECHR Press Release |  7 March 2006
Woman appeals to ex-fiance after losing embryo ruling
The Times |  7 March 2006
Woman loses frozen embryos fight
BBC News Online |  7 March 2006
RELATED ARTICLES FROM THE BIONEWS ARCHIVE
30 September 2013 - by Antony Starza-Allen 
A woman in the USA is embroiled in a legal battle with her former partner over the use of cryopreserved embryos...
23 January 2012 - by Professor Richard Storrow 
Procreative liberty and the right to legal recognition of parent-child relationships continue to be prominent themes in disputes between individual citizens and government over access to assisted reproduction. The judiciary has been largely reluctant to state whether resort to reproductive technology is a human right...
17 May 2010 - by Peter D Sozou, Geraldine M Hartshorne and Sally Sheldon 
Embryos created by IVF can be cryopreserved (stored) for possible future use. All couples who have embryos stored in the UK are currently bound by law to a single form of agreement, allowing each genetic parent to withdraw consent at any time before the embryo is transferred. This article makes the case for allowing an alternative consent agreement...
17 May 2010 - by Dr Anna Smajdor 
When Natallie Evans lost her case to prevent the destruction of her embryos in 2007, many people were moved by her plight. The letter of the law had been followed, but with tragic consequences for her...
5 March 2008 - by Dr Jess Buxton 
A UK man has two children he did not know existed, born after his estranged wife conceived using the IVF embryos they had created together, the Sunday Times has reported. The couple were treated for infertility at Bourn Hall clinic, near Cambridge, and the resulting embryos...
6 March 2006 - by BioNews 
Natallie Evans, a British woman seeking the right to be able to use her own frozen IVF embryos, will hear tomorrow if her claim has succeeded in the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). Last September, she asked the ECHR to consider her case, having been refused leave to appeal...
28 September 2005 - by BioNews 
Natallie Evans, a British woman seeking the right to be able to use her own frozen IVF embryos, has asked the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) to consider her case. Last December, the UK's highest court - the House of Lords - refused to hear her appeal, after her case was...
15 February 2005 - by BioNews 
Natallie Evans, a British woman seeking the right to be able to use her own frozen IVF embryos, is taking her case to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). The embryos were created using her own eggs and sperm from her then partner, who later withdrew his consent to...
6 December 2004 - by BioNews 
The UK's House of Lords has refused to allow an appeal from Natallie Evans, a woman seeking to be able to use frozen IVF embryos that were created before she separated from her then partner, who has since withdrawn his consent to their use. The embryos represent her last chance...
25 June 2004 - by BioNews 
The UK's Court of Appeal has ruled that Natallie Evans cannot use the IVF embryos she created with her former partner. Natallie was one of two British women legally prevented, due to the withdrawal of consent by their ex-partners, from using embryos kept in frozen storage. The embryos represent her...
HAVE YOUR SAY
Log in to add a Comment.

By posting a comment you agree to abide by the BioNews terms and conditions


Syndicate this story - click here to enquire about using this story.