Dopuszczalny zakres regulacji sztucznej prokreacji w świetle Konwencji o ochronie praw człowieka i podstawowych wolności

The decision of Austrian Constitutional Court (applications nos. G91/98 and 116/98), and subsequent judgments of the First Section and the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (application no. 57813/00 in the case of S.H. and others v. Austria) are examples of judicial attempts to interfere in legal resolution of bioethical dilemmas. Finally deciding on the case, the Grand Chamber showed some restraint in imposing on the states signatories to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the Convention) certain legal solutions in the sensitive sphere of axiology, not granting the application. Nevertheless, the Court’s conclusion raises doubts as, based on the concept of considering the Convention as a “living instrument”, it would allow for different assessment of identical facts in the future. The position held by the European Court of Human Rights may lead to a considerable reduction of legislative discretion of the member states in relation to access to artifi cial procreation.