Bateman, Simone. Les passeurs de gamètes (Nancy: Presses universitaires de Nancy, 1994).Google Scholar

CCNE no. 3, Sur les problèmes éthiques nés des techniques de reproduction artificielle, October 23, 1984. Available online at: www.ccne-ethique.fr/fr/publications/avis-sur-les-problemes-ethiques-nes-des-techniques-de-reproduction-artificielle#.VWwOvGTtmko; Braibant, G. Sciences de la vie, de l’éthique au droit (Paris: La Documentation française, 1988); Lenoir, N. Aux frontières de la vie (Paris: La Documentation française, 1991); Mattei, J.-F. La vie en questions, pour une éthique biomédicale (Paris: La Documentation française, 1994).Google Scholar

CE, January 22, 1988, no. 80936, Association Les Cigognes, RD sanit. soc. 1988, p. 317 (Dubois); Gaz. Pal., November 1997, 334, pp. 7–13 (Dufau); TGI Marseille, December 16, 1987, 1ère ch. civ., no. 1987-600054, Proc. Rép. v. Alma Mater, JCP 1989, II, 21, 191 (Pedrot) (décision confirmed by the Cour d’appel of Aix-en-Provence, April 29, 1988); TGI Créteil, March 23, 1988, no. 1988-600527, Proc. Rép. v. Assoc. Ste Sarah, Gaz. pal., 1988, II, somm. p. 346.Google Scholar

Law no. 94-653, July 29, 1994.Google Scholar

Articles 16-9, 16-5, 16-6, and 16-8. The period to act is five years from the discovery of the facts. However, for legal action concerning parentage, the period is 10 years.Google Scholar

Cass., Ass. Plén., May 31, 1991, no. 90-20.105 (D., 1991, 417 [Thouvenin]; JCP 1991, II, 45, 21752 [Terré]; RTD civ. 1992, 489 [Gobert]); Rév. crit. DIP, 1991, p. 711 (Labrusse-Riou); Déf.. September 15, 1991, no.17, p. 947 (Massip); D., 1991, p. 318 (Aubert); RTD civ., 1991, p. 517 (Huet-Weiller); Dictionnaire permanent de bioéthique, Maternité de substitution.Google Scholar

Civ. 1ère, December 9, 2003, no. 01-03.927, D., July 2004, 28, pp. 1998–2002 (Poisson-Drocourt); Def., 2004, 592 (Massip); RTD civ., 2004, 75 (Hauser); Gaz. Pal., September 2007, 248-49, pp. 10–14 (Geouffre de la Pradelle).Google Scholar

Article 17, Code de déontologie médicale, and Article R 4127-17, Code de la santé publique (CSP); Article 511-24, C. pén. (repris à l’Art. L 2165–5, CSP); Article 511-27, C. pén. (repris à l’Art. L 2164-1, CSP et Art. R 2142-17, CSP).Google Scholar

A dismissal order was rendered on September 30, 2004, by the investigative judge of Créteil (D., 2005, p. 476 [Depadt-Sebag]).Google Scholar

In application of Article 113-2 of the French Penal Code according to which French law is applied to all infractions committed on French territory (yet, in this case, the couple went abroad to the United States to carry out the surrogacy) and Article 113-6 of the Second Penal Code, which allows for the application of French law to infractions committed abroad as long as these infractions are also punished by legislation in the country where they occurred.Google Scholar

Rennes, July 4, 2002 (01/02471), D., 2002, no. 38, p. 2902 (Granet); JCP Gén., no. 1–2, January 8, 2003, p. 17 (Rubellin-Devichi) concerning a surrogacy agreement in California.Google Scholar

Paris, February 26, 2009, no. 07/18559 (JCP Gén. 2009, 26, p. 17 [Mirkovic]).Google Scholar

Mennesson, Sylvie and Dominique, . Interdits d’enfatns, le témoignage unique de parents ayant recours à une mere porteuse (Paris: Michalon, 2008).Google Scholar

Paris, 1ère ch., October 25, 2007, no. 06/00507 (D., 2007, 2953 [Luxembourg]; AJ fam. 2007, p. 478 [Chénédé]; D., 2008, chron. 434 [Bandrac, Delaisi de Parseval, Depadt-Sebag]; Rev. gén. dr. méd., June 2008, no. 27 [Brunet]; RDC, 2008 [Bellivier, Noiville]; D . 2008, p. 1371 [Granet-Lambrechts]; Gaz. pal.. January 27–29 2008, 20 [Geouffre de la Pradelle]; RTD civ., 2008, 95 [Hauser]; JCP, 2007, p. 547; JDI, 2008, no.1, p. 1 [Cuniberti]; Dr. fam., June 2008, no.15 [Mirkovic]; Dr. fam., November 2007, no. 11, p. 87 [Lamarche]).Google Scholar

Civ. 1ère, December 17, 2008, no. 07-20.468 (Responsabilité, no. 34, p. 27 [Feuillet]; Gaz. Pal., January 2009, p. 18 [Weiss-Gout]; Rec. Dalloz, March 11, 2010, 10, pp. 604–619 [Galloux, Gaumont-Prat]; Gaz. Pal., April 12, 2009, 102–106, pp. 18–19 [Massip]; Rec. Dalloz, March 19, 2009, 11, pp. 773–779 [Granet-Lambrechts]; JCP Gén. February 18, 2009, 8, pp. 20–24 [Byk]; Rec. Dalloz, February 5, 2009, 5, pp. 340–344 [Brunet]; JCP Gén., February 4, 2009, 6, pp. 37–39 [Mirkovic]; Dr. fam. February 2009, 2, pp. 27–29 [Murat]; RTD civ., January 2009, 1, pp. 106–107 [Hauser]; Éthique et société, www.macsf.fr/file/lientexte/gestation%20pour%20autrui.pdf [Feuillet]; D., 2009, p. 340 [Brunet}; Dr. fam., February 2009, comm. no. 15 [Murat]; JCP, 2009, II, 10020 [Mirkovic et D’Avout]; JDI, 2009, p.577 [Bollée]).Google Scholar

Paris, 1ère ch., March 18, 2010, no. 09/11017 (D., 2010, p. 1683 [Geouffre de la Pradelle]; AJ fam. 2010, p. 233 [Chénédé]); JCP Gén., May 3, 2010, no.18, p. 498 (Mirkovic).Google Scholar

Civ. 1ère, April 6, 2011, no. 09-17.130, no. 10-19.053, no. 09-66.486 (RTD civ., April 1, 2011, pp. 340–342 [Hauser]; Rev. Lamy Dr. Civ., June 1, 2011, 83, pp. 39–44 [Mirkovic]; Rec. Dalloz, June 16, 2011, 23, pp. 1585–1591 [Granet-Lambrechts); JCP Gén., July 18, 2011, 29, pp. 1449–1455 [Byk]; Rec. Dalloz, February 2, 2012, 5, pp. 308–322 [Galloux, Gaumont-Prat]; Gaz. Pal., May 25, 2011, 145–146, pp. 7–10 [Weiss-Gout]; Rec. Dalloz, June 2011, p. 1522 [Brunet, Berthiau]).Google Scholar

Cass. Civ. 1ère, September 13, 2013, no.12-30.138.Google Scholar

Cass. Civ. 1ère, March 19, 2014, no. 13-50.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

CEDH, 5ème section, June 26, 2014, no. 65192/11, Mennesson v. France, CEDH, 5ème section, June 26, 2014, no. 65941/11, Labassée v. France; the same grounds were used to conclude to the violation of Article 8 concerning the right to respect for the child’s private life but not that of the intended parents.Google Scholar

The ECHR has issued other decisions on the question of the recognition of effects of surrogacy conventions concluded abroad that concern Belgium and Italy, respectively: D. and others v. Belgium, CEDH, July 8, 2014, no. 29176/13; Paradiso and Campanelli v. Italy, CEDH, January 27, 2015, no. 25358/12.Google Scholar

CE, May 4, 2011, no. 348778 (JCP Gén. June 2012, 25, pp. 1233–1239 [Byk]; Rec. Dalloz, June 2012, 22, pp. 1432–1439 [Granet-Lambrechts]; Gaz. Pal., March 2012, no. 83–84, pp. 29–33 [Gouttenoire]; Rec. Dalloz, February 2012, 5, pp. 308–322 [Galloux, Gaumont-Prat]; Rev. jur. pers. fam., November 2011, 11, pp. 26–28 [Corpart]).Google Scholar

CE, July 8, 2011, no. 350486 (Rec. Dalloz, June 2012, 22, pp. 1432–1439 [Granet-Lambrechts]; Rev. jur. pers. fam., November 2011, 11, pp. 26–28 [Corpart]; AJ fam., 2011, p. 499 [Miloudi]): in this particular case, a French man requested a Laissez-passer from the French consulate in Bombay for two children so that they all could return to France. The consulate administrative authority informed him that an investigation was first going to be carried out. The father of the children thus decided to seize the Administrative Tribunal of Paris. On June 24, 2011, the administrative judge in Paris ordered the consulate administration to deliver the documents. At that point, the French Minster of European and Foreign Affairs appealed this decision and requested a stay of execution. The Conseil d’État canceled the Paris Admininstrative Tribunal’s decision, considering that “in the absence of any illegal deprivation of fundamental liberties invoked by Mr. A., the Foreign Ministry has grounds to argue that it was wrong for the Paris Administrative Judges to honor the request that was made of them.”Google Scholar

Circulaire of January 25, 2013, JUSC 1301528 C, CIV/02/13. V. C. Neirinck, The Circular CIV/02/13 on French nationality certificates, or the art of implicitly avoiding the laws, Dr. fam., March 2013, comm. 42.Google Scholar

The first case, Laborie v. France (no. 44024/13) involved the refusal to a French couple to obtain filiation recognition between themselves and children born in the Ukraine through surrogacy; the second and third cases, Foulon v. France (no. 9063/14) and Bouvet v. France (no. 10410/14), concern the impossibility for a French person to obtain – in France – filiation recognition between himself and a child born in India via surrogacy.Google Scholar

This solution was confirmed by the Cour de cassation on September 22, 2014, Avis nos. G1470006 and J1470007.Google Scholar

www.lefigaro.fr/vox/societe/2015/04/28/31003-20150428ARTFIG00354-les-enfants-nes-par-gpa-reconnus-heritiers.php.Google Scholar

Cass., Ass. Plén., July 3, 2015, no. 15-50.002.Google Scholar

Cass., Ass. Plén., July 3, 2015, no. 14-21.323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights; Article 3-1 of the New York Convention.Google Scholar