Alexander Harris Solicitors
Jump to navigation.

No Header

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Strasbourg will rule today on the case of Natallie Evans, who is fighting to save her frozen embryos from destruction.

The Court is expected to deliver their judgment at 10.00 a.m. UK time by releasing the judgment on their website www.echr.coe.int

Natallie and her legal team - Muiris Lyons, Partner at Alexander Harris and Robin Tolson QC and Susan Freeborn both of Outer Temple Chambers will be holding a press conference at 11.00 a.m. at the London offices of Alexander Harris, 222-225 The Strand, London, WC2R 1BA to confirm the result of the judgment.

The ECtHR heard the plea of Natallie Evans in September 2005. Although the Court expedited the hearing of her case, she has still had to wait over five months for the decision - an agonising wait for her.

"I just want what every woman wants - to have a baby."

"I felt that I had to pursue every possible route to save my embryos. I had hoped to have done this in the UK, but in the end I had no other choice than to take my case to Europe," said Natallie.

"These embryos represent Natallie's last chance to have a natural child of her own. The decision on Tuesday marks the end of a long and hard legal battle which Natallie has had to fight in an effort simply to be allowed to use her own embryos," said her solicitor Muiris Lyons of London based Alexander Harris solicitors.

"She has pursued her case through the High Court and the Court of Appeal arguing that the UK law which requires her embryos to be destroyed is wrong and is a breach of her human rights. The House of Lords declined to hear her appeal so Natallie was left with no choice but to take her case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg - the ultimate arbiter of human rights under the European Convention on Human Rights."

"Natallie hopes that the judgment of the Strasbourg Court will finally recognise her right to try to have a natural child of her own, using her own stored embryos."

"Natallie's case was heard by a Chamber of seven Judges in Strasbourg on Tuesday 27 September 2005. We have been waiting since then for their decision. We have now been advised by the Court that a judgment has been adopted and that it will be delivered on Tuesday 7 March," said Muiris.

Timeline
On the 14th of February 2005 Natallie applied to the ECtHR asking the court to consider whether the UK law, which now requires her six stored embryos to be destroyed, is a breach of her human rights.

The ECtHR in Strasbourg heard Natallie's plea in September 2005.
Evans vs. UK
In her application to the ECtHR, Natallie argued that by requiring her embryos to be destroyed, the UK law laid down in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 (HFEA) breaches her human rights under the European Convention. In particular she maintained that her rights under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 14 (right not to be discriminated against) had been breached.

The court identified two questions that it wished the parties to address:

1. Does the requirement under the HFEA 1990 of the father's consent to the continued storage and implantation of the fertilised eggs breach the applicant's right to respect for her private and family life under Article 8 of the convention?

2. Has the above requirement under the 1990 Act resulted in the applicant's suffering discrimination, contrary to Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 8, in comparison to a woman with intact ovaries who could: a) conceive without assistance or b) produce sufficient eggs for repeated attempts at in-vitro fertilisation?

Case background
Natallie underwent IVF treatment in 2001 with her then fiancé Howard Johnston following a diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Six embryos were created and placed in storage. Natallie underwent surgery to remove her ovaries, which was successful. She and Howard then broke up.

Natallie still wished to use the embryos as they represent her last chance of having a natural child of her own. Her former fiancé Howard refused to give his permission, which the UK law requires before they can be used. The clinic where the embryos were stored considered they had no choice other then to destroy the embryos.

Natallie applied to the Family Division of the High Court to obtain an order that she be permitted to use the embryos. She argued that Howard had already consented to the creation, storage and use of the embryos and should not be allowed to change his mind.

Natallie was unsuccessful both in the High Court and subsequently in the Court of Appeal. The judges ruled that the HFEA 1990 was clear. Both parties must consent to the use of the embryos - Howard was entitled to withdraw his consent at any time before they were used. He was able to change his mind even if it had such tragic consequences for Natallie.

Natallie petitioned the House of Lords in an effort to overturn the decision of the Court of Appeal but the House of Lords decided they would not hear her case.

If Natallie is to be permitted to use the embryos then she must do so before October 2006, which is when the five year maximum storage period currently permitted by law expires.

Solicitor Muiris Lyons answers FAQ's:

Where did the hearing take place?

European Court of Human Rights
Council of Europe
F-67075
Strasbourg
France

How many judges heard the plea?

The case was heard by the Fourth Section of the court which consists of seven judges. The court was presided over by Mr Josep Casadevall of Andorra. The UK nominated judge Sir Nicholas Bratza (who is also the President of the Fourth Section) was also sitting as one on the judges.

Did Natallie attend the hearing?

Yes.

Who represented Natallie at the hearing?

Partner Muiris Lyons of Alexander Harris solicitors, London

Robin Tolson QC of Outer Temple Chambers, London

Susan Freeborn Barrister of Outer Temple Chambers, London

On what grounds did Natallie bring her case to the ECHR?

Natallie contends that by depriving her of the opportunity to use her stored embryos to have a natural child of her own, the HFEA 1990 breaches her human rights under the European Convention on Human Rights which has been incorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1990. In particular Natallie contends that her rights to respect for her private and family life (Article 8) and not to be discriminated against (Article 14) have been breached.

Further Information:

The Judgment will be posted on the ECHR website at www.echr.coe.int

Members of the media should contact the Media Management Department on 08700 77 88 77

Back

Related news stories

If you believe that you might have a legal claim relating to this story, please complete the online enquiry form or call 0870 024 0558. Your enquiry will be forwarded to a solicitor who specialises in this area.

If you have any comments in relation to this story, please use the online discussion forum.

This news section contains stories of interest to our clients from publicly available news sources. Where we are representing the clients referred to in the news material we will say so. Where we do not represent individuals or bodies mentioned or quoted, the inclusion of the news story in our news section is not intended nor should it be taken to imply that we act for the individual or body concerned.