Available in Russian
Authors: Alexandra Troitskaya, Olga Shevchenko
DOI: 10.21128/1812-7126-2025-1-163-183
Keywords: surrogacy; gamete donation; Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation; foreign citizens; reproductive rights
Since the adoption of the Russian Constitutional Court’s Decision No.756-O of 20 April 2023, a contentious issue has persisted in the Russian legal system concerning the possibility of using partial donation in a surrogacy program. In the present case the applicants (foreign nationals) challenged the provisions of Article 55(9) of Federal Law No.323 of 21 November 2011 “On the fundamentals of health protection of citizens in the Russian Federation”. At the time of the appeal, the contested norm stipulated that “surrogacy is the carrying and birth of a child (including premature birth) under a contract concluded between a surrogate mother (a woman carrying a foetus after transfer of a donor embryo) and potential parents whose sex cells were used for fertilisation, or a single woman for whom carrying and birth of a child is impossible for medical reasons”. The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation initially accepted the applicants’ complaint, but then dismissed the case, having found no reason to believe that this very norm was the basis for refusing to satisfy the applicants’ legal claims for the transfer to them of children born under the surrogacy programme, given that the genetic material of only one of the parents (the father) was used in the programme. The article attempts to understand the reasons for this decision, the legal context within which the events unfolded, the substantive and procedural aspects contributing to this decision, as well as its possible consequences, taking into account the current regulation, which applies to Russian rather than foreign patients, but is still not entirely consistent. The authors draw attention to the risks of uncertainty and overly restrictive approaches in such a sensitive area as reproduction, analyzing in more detail the problem of discrimination on the basis of sex and health status, as well as the issue of preserving and strengthening family ties and the right of the child to family upbringing.
About the authors: Alexandra Troitskaya – Doctor Habilitatus (Dr. habil.) in Law, Professor of the Constitutional and Municipal Law Department, Faculty of Law, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow; Olga Shevchenko – Doctor of Sciences in Law, Professor of the Constitutional and Municipal Law Department, Faculty of Law, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow.
Citation:
Troitskaya A., Shevchenko O. (2025) Vspomogatel'nye reproduktivnye tekhnologii: neochevidnye predely zashchity [Assisted reproductive technologies: non-obvious limits of protection]. Sravnitel'noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie, vol.34, no.1, pp.163–183. (In Russian).
References
Davey D.A. (1989) The Right to Be Born. Medicine and Law, vol.7. no.5, pp.475–482.
Dement'eva V.O., Adamyan L.V., Smol'nikova V.Yu., Tonoyan N.M. (2022) Snizhennyy ovarial'nyy rezerv i prezhdevremennaya nedostatochnost' yaichnikov: sovremennyy vzglyad na problemu diagnostiki, kompleksnogo lecheniya i vosstanovleniya reproduktivnoy funktsii (sobstvennye dannye) [Diminished ovarian reserve and premature ovarian insufficiency: a modern view on the problem of diagnosis, complex treatment and recovery of reproductive function, own data]. Problemy reproduktsii, no.4, pp.128–136. (In Russian).
Kornya A. (2023) Sud udalilsya ot soveshchaniya [The court withdrew from deliberations]. Kommersant', 10 May. Available at: https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/5978442 (accessed: 04.02.2025). (In Russian).
Kornya A. (2023) Za otsutstviem geneticheskoy svyazi [For the lack of genetic linkage]. Kommersant', 14 March. Available at: https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/5874201 (accessed: 04.02.2025). (In Russian).
Lobov M. (2006) Pryamoe deystvie postanovleniy Evropeyskogo Suda po pravam cheloveka vo vnutrennem prave: sravnitel'nyy obzor [Direct application of the European Court of human rights rulings in national law: a comparative review]. Sravnitel'noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie, vol.15, no.1, pp.88–93. (In Russian).
Posadkova M. (2022) Budushchee uzhe zdes': o konstitutsionnoy prirode reproduktivnogo prava na rozhdenie rebyonka s ispol'zovaniem vspomogatel'nykh tekhnologiy [The future has arrived: the constitutional nature of a right of access to reproductive and genetic technologies]. Sravnitel'noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie, vol.31, no.6, pp.72–94. (In Russian).
Shatilina A.S. (2021) Konstitutsionno-pravovoe izmerenie reproduktivnogo zdorov'ya: terra incognita? [The constitutional law dimension of reproductive health: terra incognita?]. Konstitutsionnoe i munitsipal'noe pravo, no 3, pp.51–57. (In Russian).
Troitskaya A. (2021) The Proportionality Principle in the Jurisprudence of the Russian Constitutional Court. Review of Central and East European Law, vol.46, no.2, pp.203–233.
Troitskaya A.A., Khramova T.M. (2022) Konstitutsionnyy Sud v sisteme mnogourovnevogo konstitutsionalizma [Constitutional Court within the system of multi-layered constitutionalism]. In: Medushevsky A. (ed.) Konstitutsionnyy Sud Rossii: osmyslenie opyta [Russia’s Constitutional Court: rethinking its experience], Moscow: Tsentr konstitutsionnykh issledovaniy, pp.480–509. (In Russian).
Vitruk N. (2006) O nekotorykh osobennostyakh ispol'zovaniya resheniy Evropeyskogo Suda po pravam cheloveka v praktike Konstitutsionnogo Suda Rossiyskoy Federatsii i inykh sudov [Several specificities of the application of judgments of the European Court of human rights in the practice of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and other courts]. Sravnitel'noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie, vol.15, no.1, pp.83–87. (In Russian).
Zor'kin V. (2006) Rol' Konstitutsionnogo Suda Rossiyskoy Federatsii v realizatsii Konventsii o zashchite prav cheloveka i osnovnykh svobod [The role of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation in realization of the European Convention on human rights]. Sravnitel'noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie, vol.15, no.1, pp.34–38. (In Russian).