X v. Italy, No. 42247/23, ECtHR (First Section), 9 October 2025

The annulment of the birth certificate of a minor born in Italy as a result of medically assisted procreation abroad, insofar as it affects the intended mother, does not constitute a violation of Article 8 of the ECHR, given the possibility of resorting to adoption in specific cases.  

Art. 8 ECHR
Art. 14 ECHR
Art. 3 International Pact on civil and political rights
Art. 9 UN Convention on Children Rights

1. The decision of the social parent not to resort to adoption in special cases referred to in Article 44 of Law No. 184/1983, in a legal system that does not automatically assign status but allows the intended mother to request the adoption for a child born through medically assisted procreation carried out abroad, renders the legal status of the child unstable. Such uncertainty is not the effect of the rectification of the registered birth certificate, according to Article 95 of Presidential Decree 396/2000, applied five years after the transcription.

2. The overriding interest of the child in the recognition of the parent-child relationship between the child and the intended mother cannot be inferred from the respect for private and family life referred to in Article 8 of the ECHR and, consequently, it is not possible to require States to transcribe the foreign birth certificate designating the intended mother as the legal mother. Depending on the circumstances of each case, other arrangements may also adequately serve this best interest, including adoption, which has the same effect as the transcription of the foreign birth certificate.

3. After six years of cohabitation and entering into a civil partnership, two women planned to become parents and resorted to assisted reproductive technology in Spain, resulting in the birth of a child in Italy in 2018. Both mothers were registered by the registrar, and the public prosecutor brought an action for rectification pursuant to Article 95 of Presidential Decree 396/200. The Italian courts upheld the request for rectification, given that dual maternity was not permitted administratively and the instrument identified by case law was adoption in special cases pursuant to Article 44 of Law 184/1983. This procedure had not been adopted, the birth certificate had not been rectified and, for this reason, the minor appealed to the ECHR, complaining of a violation of the right to private and family life, consisting in the loss of the filiation bond five years after birth.