Chapter 3. The Council of Europe In this regard, considerations regarding nationality were taken into account, as “there is a risk that […] children [born through surrogacy arrangements] will be denied the access to their intended mother’s nationality which the legal parent-child relationship guarantees”703 The case as a whole can therefore be read as reinforcing the need to take into account the best interests of the child in any decision regarding them, including decisions on a child’s right to nationality.704 By referencing the ‘best interests of the child’, a concept drawn from the CRC, the ECtHR invites this treaty into its considerations. One might therefore wonder whether every child’s right to acquire a nationality, which is ensured by the CRC705, is of importance here as well and whether it would not be in the best interests of the child to indeed acquire a nationality, and not to remain stateless – also given the severe effects that this can have on a child’s life.706 As such, the reasoning in this case could help to prevent childhood statelessness. Furthermore, surrogacy – involving international surrogacy arrangements – can be considered to be one of the complex issues relating to statelessness, because such reproductive techniques are not always accommodated in nationality regulations of the countries involved. This could result in a child remaining stateless.707 In this context, the Mennesson case is again of importance in that it demonstrates that “even where domestic law does not regulate this question, states must nevertheless act in such a way as to ensure children’s right to a nationality, in line with the best interests of the child”.708 Here, this case aids in preventing childhood statelessness, because every child should be able to acquire a nationality, even where a child is born in the context of a surrogacy agreement. Moreover, the case should also be “read more broadly, as requiring states to guarantee that the birth of any child connected to a state has their birth registered by that state. This includes any child born in the territory of the state, as well as children born abroad whose intended parents are citizens.” 709 Note also that in another, similar case, the Court decided in the same way. This case was that of Foulon et Bouvet c. France and judgment was delivered in 2016.710 The case 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 Advisory Opinion concerning the Recognition in Domestic Law of a Legal Parent-Child Relationship between a Child Born through a Gestational Surrogacy Arrangement Abroad and the Intended Mother Request no. P16–2018–001 (ECtHR, 10 April 2019) para 40. See also ENS, ‘No Child Should be Stateless’ (ENS 2015); ISI, World’s Stateless: Children (Wolf Legal Publishers 2017) 432–433. Art 7 CRC. UNHCR, ‘I Am Here, I Belong. The Urgent Need to End Childhood Statelessness’ (UNHCR 2015) available at www.unhcr.org/ibelong/wp-content/uploads/2015–10-StatelessReport_ENG15-web.pdf> accessed 3 July 2021. Sanoj Rajan, ‘International Surrogacy Arrangements and Statelessness’ in ISI, World’s Stateless: Children (Wolf Legal Publishers 2017) 374–384; Jyothi Kanics, ‘Preventing and Addressing Statelessness in the Context of International Surrogacy Arrangements’ (2014) 19 Tilburg Law Review 117, 120. ENS, ‘No Child Should Be Stateless’ (ENS 2015) 24. Adam Weiss, ‘Case Note: Mennesson v France and Advisory Opinion concerning the Recognition in Domestic Law of a Legal Parent–Child Relationship between a Child Born through a Gestational Surrogacy Arrangement Abroad and the Intended Mother’ (2019) 1 Statelessness and Citizenship Review 343, 349. Foulon et Bouvet c France App Nos 9063/14 & 10410/14 (ECHR, 21 July 2016) ECLI:CE:ECHR:2016:07 21JUD000906314. Intersentia 133