AVRUPA İNSAN HAKLARI MAHKEMESİ KARARLARI KAPSAMINDA SINIR ÖTESİ TAŞIYICI ANNELİK YÖNTEMİYLE DOĞAN ÇOCUĞUN SOYBAĞININ KURULMASININ DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ

Öz

Taşıyıcı annelik, dünya çapında farklı yaklaşımlara tâbi tutulan etik açıdan tartışmalı karmaşık bir konudur. Bu konu, sosyolojik, hukukî ve etik bakımdan çeşitli şekillerde ele alınmaktadır. Bu nedenle bazı ülkelerde taşıyıcı anneliğe yasal olarak izin verilirken, bazılarında ise taşıyıcı annelik yasaklanmıştır. Ülke hukuklarının bu farklı yaklaşımlarımdan dolayı çocuk sahibi olmak isteyen çiftler taşıyıcı anneliğin yasal olduğu ülkelere gitmektedir. “Sınır ötesi taşıyıcı annelik” olarak adlandırılan bu durum, hukukî açıdan birçok soruna yol açmaktadır. Çalışmamızda, gönüllü babanın üreme hücresinin kullanıldığı ve gönüllü baba ile çocuk arasında yurtdışında yasal olarak kurulan soybağının forum devletinde tanınmasına ilişkin sorun Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi kararları çerçevesinde incelenecektir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sınır Ötesi Taşıyıcı Annelik
• Taşıyıcı Annelik
• Soybağı
• Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi
• Özel ve Aile Hayatına Saygı Hakkı

Evaluation of the Establishment of the Paternity of the Child Born by Surrogate Motherhood within the Scope of the Decisions of the European Court of Human Rights

Öz

Humanity, driven by the desire to have children, has explored various methods throughout history, and with the advancement of modern medicine, artificial insemination methods have emerged. Surrogacy, a heterologous artificial insemination method, involves a woman carrying and giving birth to a child for someone else. Surrogacy sparks debates in ethical, sociological, and legal realms due to concerns about violating the dignity of the child and surrogate mother, turning them into subjects of a contract. In the literature, surrogacy has been subject to various distinctions, with a crucial one being whether the surrogate mother's reproductive cells are used in the process. If the surrogate mother's reproductive cells are used, it is termed traditional surrogacy; if not, it is gestational surrogacy. Another important distinction is whether surrogacy is compensated; if so, it is called commercial surrogacy, and if not, altruistic surrogacy. The doctrine also differentiate surrogacy based on whether the intended parents and the surrogate mother are in the same country or different countries, categorizing it as domestic surrogacy or international surrogacy, respectively. Countries have diverse approaches to surrogacy. Some legal systems prohibit all forms of surrogacy, while others permit altruistic or both altruistic and commercial surrogacy. Additionally, some countries lack regulations on surrogacy altogether. Due to these varying legal approaches, couples seeking to have children may travel to countries where surrogacy is legal, leading to the phenomenon of surrogacy tourism. With surrogacy tourism, the number of individuals resorting to international surrogacy has increased, raising questions about the legal status of children born through this method, resulting in numerous cases before the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) does not explicitly regulate surrogacy. The ECHR protects the right to private and family life under Article 8, encompassing a couple's desire to have children and use assisted reproductive technologies. The ECHR also considers international surrogacy under the scope of Article 8. ECHR decisions on international surrogacy can be categorized into four groups based on the fundamental legal issues addressed in the cases. The first group of court decisions pertains to the recognition in the home country of the parent-child relationship legally established abroad through international surrogacy, involving a genetic link between the child and the intended parent. The second group addresses travel restrictions imposed on children born through international surrogacy. The third group focuses on the recognition in the home country of the parent-child relationship in cases where there is no genetic link between the child and the intended parent legally established abroad. The fourth group deals with posthumous surrogacy and the right to become a grandparent. The ECHR acknowledges that surrogacy is an ethically sensitive issue. According to the court, a state's prohibition of surrogacy generally does not violate the ECHR. However, the non-recognition of legally established parent-child relationships from surrogacy abroad should be limited, as it may negatively impact the child's identity. Therefore, the discretionary power granted to the state should be restricted. In our study, the legal parentage relationship between the child and couples who desire to have a child, where gestational surrogacy is employed and at least one of the couples uses their reproductive cells, has been examined within the framework of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Initially, the general stance of the ECtHR on surrogacy has been determined. Subsequently, the decisions Mennesson v France and Labassee v France, as well as the case K.K. and Others v Denmark, have been analyzed. The reason for examining the Mennesson v France and Labassee v France decisions in our study is that these decisions represent the first rulings on establishing the legal parentage of a child born through surrogacy. The reason for examining the case of K.K. and Others v Denmark is that it is the latest decision by the ECtHR regarding the determination of parentage for a child born through cross-border surrogacy involving at least one intended parent's reproductive cells.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Surrogate Motherhood
• Paternity
• European Court of Human Rights
• Right to Respect for Private Life
• Right to Respect for Family Life

Kaynakça

1. Ağaoğlu, Cahit. “Karşılaştırmalı Hukukta Sınıraşan Taşıyıcı Annelik ile Taşıyıcı Anneden Doğan Çocukların Yasal Anne-Babalığının Kazanılma Sorunu”, Public and Private International Law Bulletin. 40/1 (2020): 437-480.
2. Baran Çelik, Neşe. Milletlerarası Özel Hukukta Soybağının Kurulması. Ankara: Yetkin, 2021.
3. Blauwhoff, Richard ve Frohn, Lisette. “International Commercial Surrogacy Arrangements: The Interests of the Child as a Concern of Both Human Rights and Private International Law” içinde Fundamental Rights in International and European Law: Public and Private Law Perspectives, ed. Christophe Paulussen vd., 211-241. Hague: Springer, 2016.
4. Coutinho, Diana. “Cross-border Surrogacy in the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights: Contributions and Challenges”. JusGov Research Paper. 3 (2022): 1-4.
5. Ekşi, Nuray. “Mahkeme Kararlarında Sınıraşan Taşıyıcı Anneliğe İlişkin Hukuki Sorunlar”. Milletlerarası Hukuk ve Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk Bülteni. 36/2 (2016): 1-51.
6. Fawcett, James J, Shúilleabháin Máire Ní ve Shah Sangeeta. Human Rights and Private International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016.
7. Gössl, Susanne L. “Germany” içinde International Surrogacy Arrangements: Legal Regulation at the International Level, ed. Katarina Trimmings ve Paul Beaumont, 131-142. (North America: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2013).
8. İltaş, Yiğit. “Taşıyıcı Annelik ve Soybağı Meselesi”. Bahçeşehir Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi. 16/201-202, (2021): s.1013-1054.

9. Kaur, Harleen. Laws and Policies on Surrogacy Comparative Insights from India. Singapore: Springer, 2021.
10. Kırkbeşoğlu, Nagehan. Soybağı Alanında Biyoetik ve Hukuk Sorunları, İstanbul: Vedat, 2006.
11. Özpulat, Funda. “Yardımcı Üreme Teknikleri, Etik ve Sağlık Personelinin Sorumlulukları”. Kastamonu Sağlık Akademisi. 2/2 (2017): 112-131.
12. Parlak Börü, Şafak. “Aile Hukukunda Zor Bir Dönemeç: Karşılaştırmalı Hukuk Bakış Açısıyla Taşıyıcı Anneliğe İlişkin Güncel Gelişmeler”. PPIL. 39/1 (2019): 63-110.
13. Tuna, Ekin. “Milletlerarası Özel Hukukta Çocuğun Üstün Yararı”. Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Kadir Has Üniversitesi, 2022.
14. Turgut, Cemile ve Göksu Işık. “Türk Medeni Kanunu ve Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi Kararları Kapsamında Taşıyıcı Annelik”. Beykent Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi. 4/7 (2018): 221-240.
15. Ungan Çalışkan, Hazal. “Bırakınız Taşısınlar: Taşıyıcı Anneliğe Güncel Bakış”. Marmara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Hukuk Araştırmaları Dergisi. 22/1 (2016): 489-510.
16. Yasan Tepetaş, Candan. “Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesinin Taşıyıcı Anneliğe İlişkin Kararlarının Türk Kamu Düzeni Bakımından Anlamı”. Bahçeşehir Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi. 14/177-178 (2019): 1219-1262.
17. Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi Kararları S.H. and Others v. Austria, Application no. 57813/00, 01/04/2010.
18. Evans v. the United Kingdom, Application no. 6339/05, 10/04/2007.
19. Mennesson v. France, Application no. 65192/11, 26/06/2014.
20. Labassee v. France, Application no. 65941/11, 26/06/2014.
21. D. and Others v. Belgium, Application no. 29176/13, 08/07/2014.
22. Paradiso and Campanelli v. Italy, Application no. 25358/12, 27/01/2015.
23. Valdís Fjölnisdóttir and Others v. Iceland, Application no. 71552/17, 18/05/2021.
24. A.M. v. Norway, Application no. 30254/18, 24/03/2022.
25. D.B. and Others v. Switzerland, Application no. 58817/15 58252/15, 22/11/2022.
26. K.K. and Others v. Denmark, Application no. 25212/21, 06/12/2022.
27. Petithory Lanzmann v. France, Application no. 23038/19, 12/11/2019.
28. Wagner and J.M.W.L. v. Lüksemburg, Application no. 76240/01, 28/06/2007.
29. Negrepontis-Giannisis v. Yunanistan, Application no. 56759/08, 05/12/2013.