Evans v United Kingdom
The requirement that both parties consent to the continued storage and use of embryos, so that a former partner could withdraw his consent, did not breach the woman's human rights.
Facts
Ms Evans and her partner, Mr Johnston, underwent IVF treatment together after she was diagnosed with ovarian cancer, and six embryos were created and stored before her ovaries were removed. They both consented to the storage and use of the embryos. The relationship then ended, and Mr Johnston withdrew his consent, as he was entitled to do under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, which meant that the embryos had to be destroyed. The embryos were Ms Evans's only chance of having a child who was genetically related to her.
Legal principle
The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights held, by a majority, that there was no violation of article 8, the right to respect for private and family life. The court said that the case involved a conflict between the article 8 rights of two private individuals, each of whom had a right to decide whether to become a parent. There was no consensus among member states on the issue, so the state had a wide margin of appreciation. The requirement of continuing consent from both parties was clear and was a legitimate policy choice, which promoted legal certainty and respected the autonomy of both parties. The English courts had reached the same conclusion.
Related cases on parentage, parental responsibility and medical decisions
- Re A (Children) (Conjoined Twins: Surgical Separation) [2001] Fam 147
- Re B (A Minor) (Wardship: Medical Treatment) [1981] 1 WLR 1421
- Bell v Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust [2021] EWCA Civ 1363
- Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority [1986] AC 112
- Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust v Yates [2017] EWHC 972 (Fam)
- Re H (Minors) (Local Authority: Parental Rights) (No 3) [1991] Fam 151
- Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v A [2003] EWHC 259 (QB), [2003] 1 FLR 1091
- Mabon v Mabon [2005] EWCA Civ 634, [2005] Fam 366
Studying family law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
