Chapter 3. The Council of Europe wanted to obtain Maltese nationality. He was, however, born out of wedlock to a British mother and a Maltese father. Because Maltese nationality law treated children born in and out of wedlock differently, Genovese was unable to acquire Maltese nationality, whereas children born in wedlock in the same situation could receive this nationality. He complained to the Court of a violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention. The ECtHR agreed that he was treated differently without reasonable and objective justification contrary to Article 14.693 This case shows that children in similar situations should not be treated differently in nationality laws and led to law reform in Malta.694 Two further important ECHR cases with regard to children and nationality were decided in 2014: Mennesson and Labassee v. France.695 These cases both concerned France’s refusal to grant legal recognition to the parent-child relationships that were established legally in the United States through a surrogacy arrangement. Because these two cases and the decisions of the Court therein are so similar, the discussion here focuses on the Mennesson case solely. In the Mennesson case both the French parents and their two children born through the surrogacy arrangement in the US complained to the Court of a violation of Article 8 of the Convention. Their complaint was based on their inability to obtain legal recognition in France – their claims were dismissed up to the French Court of Cassation – of the parentchild relationships established abroad as a result of a surrogacy agreement, which they believed harmed the children’s best interests.696 French law, however, prohibits surrogacy. The French government considers that surrogacy is a moral and ethical issue, which allows the state a wide margin of appreciation in these matters. The Court agrees that there is a lack of consensus regarding the legality of surrogacy arrangements in Europe, which reflects that recourse to a surrogacy arrangement raises sensitive ethical questions. It also confirms that states must in principle be afforded a wide margin of appreciation regarding the decision whether or not to authorize this method of assisted reproduction and whether or not to recognize a legal parent-child relationship between children legally conceived as the result of a surrogacy arrangement abroad and the intended parents.697 However, the Court also 693 694 695 696 697 Genovese v Malta App No 53124/09 (ECHR, 11 October 2011) ECLI:CE:ECHR:2011:1011 JUD005312409, paras 48–49. ENS, ‘Preventing Childhood Statelessness in Europe: Gaps, Issues and Good Practices’ (ENS 2014) 29 <https://www.statelessness.eu/updates/publication/preventing-childhood-statelessness-europeissues-gaps-and-good-practices> accessed 3 July 2021. Mennesson v France App No 65192/11 (ECHR, 26 June 2014) ECLI:CE:ECHR:2014:0626 JUD006519211; Labassee c France App No 65941/11 (ECHR, 26 June 2014) ECLI:CE:ECHR:2014 :0626JUD006594111. See about these cases also Liesbet Pluym, ‘Mennesson v. France and Labassee v. France: Surrogate Motherhood Across Borders’ (Strasbourg Observers, 16 July 2014) <https:// strasbourgobservers.com/2014/07/16/mennesson-v-france-and-labassee-v-france-surrogatemotherhood-across-borders/> accessed 3 July 2021; and Claire Achmad, ‘European Court of Human Rights: France Violated Child Rights in International Surrogacy Cases’ (Leiden Law Blog, 28 July 2014) <http://leidenlawblog.nl/articles/european-court-of-human-rights-france-violated-child-rights-ininternationa> accessed 3 July 2021. Mennesson v France App No 65192/11 (ECHR, 26 June 2014) ECLI:CE:ECHR:2014:0626 JUD006519211, para 43. Ibid, para 79. Intersentia 131