The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) case law on cross-border surrogacy establishes that a ‘general and absolute impossibility’ of obtaining recognition of the relationship, legally established in another country, between a surrogate-born child and their intended parents will violate the child’s right to respect for private life. This approach requires States to accommodate familial bonds created through cross-border surrogacy and limits the margin of appreciation available to States to determine their national response. In recent case law, the ECtHR has adopted an interventionist approach in respect of national decision-making and has gone further than might be expected under the principle of subsidiarity. Examination of the emerging body of jurisprudence on cross-border surrogacy, however, reveals a preference for ‘traditional’ family formations, with the ECtHR tending to adopt a less interventionist and more deferential approach to national decision-making where the family at the centre of the case deviates from the structure of the family reflected in the seminal cross-border surrogacy case of Mennesson v France App no 65192/11 (ECtHR, 26 June 2014). This approach leads to inconsistency in the cross-border surrogacy case law as it creates something of a moving target for the vindication of children’s rights in ‘less traditional’ family forms.

中文翻译：

---

私人和家庭生活以及非传统家庭的便利：欧洲人权法院跨境代孕案件中尊重的限度

欧洲人权法院（ECtHR）关于跨境代孕的判例法规定，代孕出生的孩子与其预期父母之间在另一个国家合法建立的关系“普遍且绝对不可能”获得承认将违反儿童的私生活受到尊重的权利。这种方法要求各国包容通过跨境代孕建立的家庭纽带，并限制各国确定其国家应对措施的余地。在最近的判例法中，欧洲人权法院在国家决策方面采取了干预主义方法，并且比辅助原则下的预期走得更远。然而，对跨境代孕新兴判例体系的考察揭示了对“传统”家庭形式的偏好，欧洲人权法院倾向于对国家决策采取较少干预和更加尊重的方法，其中家庭处于代孕的中心。该案与 Mennesson 诉法国申请号 65192/11（欧洲人权法院，2014 年 6 月 26 日）这一开创性跨境代孕案所反映的家庭结构不同。这种方法导致跨境代孕判例法的不一致，因为它为维护“不那么传统”的家庭形式中的儿童权利创造了某种移动目标。