Ruling No. 620


Public hearing of July 3, 2015

MrLouvel, First President Dismissal

Ruling No. 620 P+B+R+I

Appeal No. K 15-50.002



On the basis of the foregoing, THE COURT, sitting in plenary session at a public hearing on June 19, 2015 :

With respect to the sole ground of appeal before the COURT :

Whereas, according to the ruling (made on December 16, 2014 in Rennes) under appeal before the Court of Cassation, L. Y..., who was acknowledged by Mr. Y... on February 1, 2011, was born on [...] in Moscow ; her birth certificate, drawn up in Russia, designates Mr. Patrice Y..., a citizen of France, as the father, and Mrs. Lilia A..., a citizen of Russia who gave birth to the child, as the mother ; the Public Prosecutor objected to Mr. Y...’s request aiming at having the birth certificate transcribed into a birth register kept by the French Consulate, by alleging the existence of a surrogate motherhood agreement entered into by and between Mr. Y... and Mrs. A... ;

Whereas the Prosecution Department of the Rennes Appeal Court is critical of the decision which ordered the transcription, since, according to the ground of appeal before the Court of Cassation :

In the current status of positive law, it is a violation of the principle of the unavailability of personal status, which is an essential principle of French law, to give effect, having regard to filiation, to a surrogate motherhood agreement which, even though it was lawful abroad, is null and void as being against the French public order in pursuance of Sections 16-7 and 16-9 of the French Civil Code, as confirmed by the jurisprudence of the Court of Cassation ;

The denied transcription of a birth certificate drawn up further to a foreign decision is justified and based on a conflict between the said decision and the French international public order. This solution, which does not deprive the child of her relationship to her father, nor of her relationship to her mother which is recognized by the laws of the foreign State, or which does not prevent her from living in Mr. Patrice Guegen’s home, does not bear prejudice to the child’s right to respect for her private and family life within the meaning of Article 8 of the European Human Rights Convention or to her best interests as they are guaranteed by Article 3, paragraph 1 of the International Convention on the Rights of the Child ;

However, considering that the appeal court found that the birth certificate was neither unlawful or forged and that the facts declared therein did correspond to reality, the appeal court rightfully concluded that the surrogate motherhood agreement by and between Mr. Y... and Mrs. A... did not hinder the transcription of the birth certificate ; the ground of appeal before this Court is not founded ;


DISMISSES the appeal.