Title:
M. X. et autres v. le procureur général près la cour d’appel de Rennes et autres (Mr X and other v. Attorney General at the Court of Appeal of Rennes and other)
Court:
Cour de cassation – Première chambre civile (Supreme Court – First Civil Chamber)
Date:
13 September 2013
CRC Provisions:
Article 3: Best interests of the child
Other International Provisions:
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 8: Right to respect for private and family life
Domestic Provisions:
Civil Code, Articles 16-7 and 16-9 (surrogacy agreements void), 47 ( recognition of foreign civil status documents unless fraudulent), 332 (legitimation of a child), and 336 (acknowledgment of the father)
Code of Civil Procedure, Articles 423 (authority of public prosecutor), and 455 (requirements of court judgment)
Case Summary:
Background:
A child was born to an Indian surrogate mother in India, where surrogacy is legal. The child was issued an Indian birth certificate listing Mr X, the biological father of the child and a French citizen, as the father. Before the child’s birth, Mr X had been granted official recognition of paternity of the child in France. Upon bringing the child to France, Mr X sought to have the child’s birth certificate transcribed in the French Civil Register. The public prosecutor opposed the transcription and also sought cancellation of the recognition of paternity. The High Court of Nantes (trial court) dismissed the prosecutor’s claims and ordered transcription of the birth certificate. The Court of Appeal of Rennes reversed the trial court, ordered cancellation of the recognition of paternity, and refused to transcribe the birth certificate because the child was born through surrogacy, which is banned under French law. Mr X appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.
Issue and resolution:
Recognition of paternity and birth registration. The Supreme Court rejected Mr X’s appeal and upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal of Rennes.
Court reasoning:
Because surrogacy agreements are illegal in France, the surrogacy agreement in India was a circumvention of French law, and therefore operated as a fraud on French law. The protections and procedures that would usually be accorded in such a situation, such as the recognition of foreign civil status documents, are not required or allowed where, as in this case, such recognition would operate as a fraud on French law. Likewise, in the presence of fraud, the CRC and the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms cannot be relied upon.
Excerpts citing CRC and other relevant human rights instruments:
as in full-text French decision:
Attendu que M. X… et Mme Y… font grief à l’arrêt de refuser d’ordonner la transcription de l’acte de naissance de l’enfant sur les registres de l’état civil français alors, selon le moyen :
. . .
3°/ que chacun a droit au respect de sa vie privée et familiale ; que là où l’existence d’un lien familial avec un enfant se trouve établie, l’Etat doit agir de manière à permettre à ce lien de se développer et accorder une protection juridique rendant possible l’intégration de l’enfant dans sa famille ; que le refus de transcrire un acte de naissance étranger sur les registres de l’état civil rend la filiation qu’il constate inopposable en France ; qu’en l’espèce, le refus de transcription de l’acte de naissance de l’enfant, née d’un père français, sur les registres français de l’état civil, qui rend la filiation paternelle de cette enfant inopposable en France, porte atteinte à l’intérêt supérieur de l’enfant et au droit au respect de la vie privée et familiale de celle ci et de M. X… ; qu’en statuant comme elle l’a fait, la cour d’appel a violé l’article 8 de la Convention de sauvegarde des droits de l’homme et des libertés fondamentales ;
4°/ que c’est l’intérêt supérieur de l’enfant qui doit primer ; que le principe de primauté de l’intérêt supérieur de l’enfant impose au juge de rechercher concrètement si l’intérêt de l’enfant guide la mesure qu’il ordonne ; qu’en l’espèce, en refusant de tenir compte de l’intérêt de l’enfant et de rechercher, comme elle le devait, si le refus de transcription de l’acte de naissance de l’enfant sur les registres français de l’état civil, qui rend la filiation paternelle de l’enfant inopposable en France, ne conduisait pas à une méconnaissance de l’intérêt supérieur de ce dernier, la cour d’appel a violé, par refus d’application, l’article 3-1 de la de la Convention internationale des droits de l’enfant, ensemble l’article 8 de la Convention de sauvegarde des droits de l’homme et des libertés fondamentales ;
Mais attendu qu’en l’état du droit positif, est justifié le refus de transcription d’un acte de naissance fait en pays étranger et rédigé dans les formes usitées dans ce pays lorsque la naissance est l’aboutissement, en fraude à la loi française, d’un processus d’ensemble comportant une convention de gestation pour le compte d’autrui, convention qui, fût elle licite à l’étranger, est nulle d’une nullité d’ordre public aux termes des articles 16-7 et 16-9 du code civil ;
Qu’en l’espèce, la cour d’appel, qui a caractérisé l’existence d’un tel processus frauduleux, comportant une convention de gestation pour le compte d’autrui conclue entre M. X… et Mme Y…, en a déduit à bon droit que l’acte de naissance de l’enfant établi par les autorités indiennes ne pouvait être transcrit sur les registres de l’état civil français ;
Qu’en présence de cette fraude, ni l’intérêt supérieur de l’enfant que garantit l’article 3, § 1, de la Convention internationale des droits de l’enfant, ni le respect de la vie privée et familiale au sens de l’article 8 de la Convention de sauvegarde des droits de l’homme et des libertés fondamentales ne sauraient être utilement invoqués ;
D’où il suit que le moyen n’est pas fondé ;
. . .
Attendu que M. X… et Mme Y… font grief à l’arrêt d’annuler la reconnaissance de paternité de M. X… alors, selon le moyen :
. . .
3°/ que chacun a droit au respect de sa vie privée et familiale ; que là où l’existence d’un lien familial avec un enfant se trouve établie, l’Etat doit agir de manière à permettre à ce lien de se développer et accorder une protection juridique rendant possible l’intégration de l’enfant dans sa famille ; qu’en l’espèce, l’annulation de la reconnaissance de paternité souscrite le 29 juillet 2009 par M. X…, qui prive l’enfant de sa filiation paternelle, porte atteinte à l’intérêt supérieur de l’enfant et au droit au respect de la vie privée et familiale de celui ci et de M. X… ; qu’en statuant comme elle l’a fait, la cour d’appel a violé l’article 8 de la Convention de sauvegarde des droits de l’homme et des libertés fondamentales ;
4°/ que le principe de primauté de l’intérêt supérieur de l’enfant impose au juge de rechercher concrètement si l’intérêt de l’enfant guide la mesure qu’il ordonne ; qu’en l’espèce, en refusant de tenir compte de l’intérêt de l’enfant et de rechercher, comme elle le devait, si l’annulation de la reconnaissance de paternité souscrite le 29 juillet 2009 par M. X… qu’elle ordonnait, qui prive l’enfant de sa filiation paternelle, ne conduisait pas à une méconnaissance de l’intérêt supérieur de ce dernier, la cour d’appel a violé, par refus d’application, l’article 3-1 de la de la Convention internationale des droits de l’enfant, ensemble l’article 8 de la Convention de sauvegarde des droits de l’homme et des libertés fondamentales ;
… qu’ayant caractérisé la fraude à la loi commise par M. X…, la cour d’appel en a exactement déduit que la reconnaissance paternelle devait être annulée ;
Qu’en présence de cette fraude, ni l’intérêt supérieur de l’enfant que garantit l’article 3, § 1, de la Convention internationale des droits de l’enfant, ni le respect de la vie privée et familiale au sens de l’article 8 de la Convention de sauvegarde des droits de l’homme et des libertés fondamentales ne sauraient être utilement invoqués ;
D’où il suit que le moyen n’est pas fondé ;
CRIN English translation:
[With respect to the refusal to transcribe the birth certificate, Mr X argues:]
3 ˚ / that everyone is entitled to respect for his private and family life; that where the existence of a family relationship with a child is established, the State must take action to allow this link to develop and provide legal protection making possible the integration of the child in its family; that refusal to transcribe a foreign birth certificate in the registers of civil status makes the parentage unenforceable in France; in the instant case, the refusal of transcription of the birth certificate of the child, born to a French father, on the records of the French civil state, which makes the paternity of this child unenforceable in France, undermines the best interests of the child and the right to respect for privacy and family of the latter and Mr X; in acting as it did the court of appeal violated Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
4 ˚ / that it is the best interests of the child which must take precedence; that the principle of primacy of the best interests requires the court to look specifically at whether the interests of the child guide the measure ordered; in this case, by refusing to take into account the best interests of the child and to determine, as it should have, if the refusal of transcription of the birth certificate of the child on the French registers of civil status, which makes the paternity of the child unenforceable in France, did not lead to a disregard of the best interests of the latter, the court of appeal violated Article 3-1 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
However, the existing law justifies refusal of transcription of a birth certificate of a foreign country and written in the forms used in the country, where the birth is the result, in evasion of French law, of a comprehensive process that includes a gestation-for-hire agreement, which, though lawful abroad, is null as contrary to public policy under sections 16-7 and 16-9 of the Civil Code;
In the present case, the Court of Appeal, which characterised the gestation-for-hire agreement between Mr X and Ms Y as the existence of a fraudulent process, inferred rightly that the birth of the child established by the Indian authorities could not be entered in the registers of the French civil status;
In the presence of this fraud, neither the best interests of the child guaranteed by Article 3 § 1 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child nor the respect for private and family life interest under Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms can be properly relied upon;
Whence it follows that the plea is unfounded;
. . .
[With respect to the judgment nullifying the recognition of paternity, Mr X argues:]
3 ˚ / that everyone is entitled to respect for his private and family life; that where the existence of a family relationship with a child is established, the State must take action to allow this link to develop and provide legal protection making possible the integration of the child in its family; in this case, the cancellation of the recognition of paternity subscribed on 29 July 2009 by Mr X, which deprives the child of his paternal filiation, prejudices the best interests of the child and the right to respect for privacy and family of the latter and Mr X; in acting as it did the court of appeal violated Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
4 ˚ / that the principle of primacy of the best interests requires the court to look specifically at whether the interests of the child guide the measure ordered; in this case, by refusing to take into account the best interests of the child and to determine, as it should have, if the cancellation of the recognition of paternity subscribed on 29 July 2009 by Mr X that it ordered, which deprives the child of his paternal filiation, did not lead to a disregard of the best interests of the latter, the court of appeal violated, by refusing its application, Article 3-1 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
… having characterised the fraud on the law committed by Mr X, the Court of Appeal has correctly concluded that paternal recognition should be cancelled;
In the presence of this fraud, neither the best interests of the child guaranteed by Article 3 § 1 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child nor the respect for private and family life interest under Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms can be properly relied upon;
Whence it follows that the plea is unfounded;
Follow Up:
Counsel for the family has expressed their intent to immediately appeal this decision to the European Court of Human Rights.
Notes:
This decision of the Supreme Court upheld the decision by the Court of Appeal of Rennes.
In January 2013, the French Minister of Justice issued an administrative order requiring that civil status (similar to citizenship) be granted to children born to French parents under surrogacy agreements. This was the subject of much debate, and was accused of being invalid on the basis that it improperly circumvented the parliamentary process. This Supreme Court decision directly ignores that administrative order and confirms the position of the Court, expressed in the Mennesson case in 2010, that children born under surrogacy agreements cannot be granted French civil status.
CRIN Comments:
CRIN believes this decision is not consistent with the CRC. Under Article 8, the State has an obligation to protect, and if necessary, re-establish basic aspects of the child’s identity, including their nationality and family ties. In CRIN’s view, the refusal to transcribe the birth certificate and the cancellation of the recognition of paternity violates this Article, and is inconsistent with the best interests of the child principle under Article 3.
Citation:
Arrêt n° 1092 du 13 septembre 2013 (12-18.315) – Cour de cassation – Première chambre civile – ECLI:FR:CCASS:2013:C101092 (Judgment No 1092 of 13 September 2013 (12-18.315) – Supreme Court – First Civil Chamber – ECLI:FR:CCASS:2013:C101092)
Link to Full Judgment:
http://www.courdecassation.fr/jurisprudence_2/premiere_chambre_civile_568/1092_13_27172.html
This case summary is provided by the Child Rights International Network for educational and informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice.