Alexander Harris Solicitors
Jump to navigation.

No Header

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg heard the plea of Natallie Evans today, who is fighting to save her frozen embryos.

On the 14th of February 2005 Natallie applied to the ECHR 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.

At a two hour oral hearing this morning in Strasbourg Natallie's legal team made submissions on the admissibility and merits of her claim. A decision is expected by the court in six to ten weeks time.

Partner Muiris Lyons"Natallie wants nothing more than to have a baby. Following her treatment for ovarian cancer she has six embryos in storage. These embryos represent her last chance to have a natural child of her own. UK law now requires her embryos to be destroyed. This is because her former fiancé, who consented to the embryos being created for her use, then changed his mind. As a result Natallie has had to fight a long and hard legal battle in an effort simply to be allowed to use her own embryos."

"She has unsuccessfully argued in both the High Court and the Court of Appeal that the UK law which requires her embryos to be destroyed is wrong and a breach of her human rights. The House of Lords declined to hear her appeal and she has been 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 in Strasbourg, she will finally succeed in winning the right to try to have a natural child of her own, using her own stored embryos," said her solicitor Muiris Lyons of London based Alexander Harris solicitors.

Evans vs. UK

In her application to the ECHR, Natallie argues 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 maintains that her rights under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 14 (right not to be discriminated against) are breached.

Natallie's application was accepted by the ECHR and the UK Government were invited to file their response. After considering the application and the response the court decided that there should be an oral hearing to enable the parties to make submissions on the admissibility and merits of Natallie's claim - which took place today (Tuesday 27th).

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?

It has already been acknowledged by the UK courts that Natallie's right to a private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention has been infringed but the UK courts felt that such an infringement was justified. The courts decided that it was the policy of the UK Government to give both parties to the IVF process equal rights, that such a policy was a reasonable one to have and did not amount to a breach of Natallie's human rights.

Natallie does not accept that the interference with her rights is justified. She considers that the UK law, by effectively giving her former partner a complete veto, is unfair and unjust and in breach of her human rights. Natallie's lawyers will argue that her right to respect for her family and private life has been unjustifiably breached and that has been discriminated against by the operation of the HFEA 1990.

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.

"I feel that I have to pursue every possible route to save my embryos. I hoped that I could have done so in the UK, but I now have no other choice but to take my case to Europe", said Natallie.

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 is Natallie bringing 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.

When do we expect a decision?

The judges will have prepared for the hearing by carefully reading all the papers filed with the court and have heard submissions today from lawyers for both parties. Their detailed judgment is expected to be released in 6-10 weeks.

How likely is Natallie to succeed at the ECHR - are you hopeful?

It is always difficult to predict prospects of success in groundbreaking cases such as this. Given that Natallie's case is all about her human rights there is no better forum than the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. Legally this is Natallie's last hope but ironically it is also probably her best hope.

Further information:

Information for the press/media and visitors is available on the ECHR website at www.echr.coe.int.

Notes to Editors:

Please note that Natallie Evans is happy to take part in interviews between Thursday 29th September and 2nd October 2005. All interview requests should be made directly to Alexander Harris media 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.