프랑스법상 대리모계약으로 출생한 자의 부모결정기준과 자녀의 복리 -유럽인권재판소 2014년 6월 26일 판결(Mennesson v France and Labassee v France)을 계기로- (Surrogacy Agreement and the Primacy of the Child’s Interests -the European Court of Human Rights’ decisions of 26 June 2014 in Mennesson v France and Labassee v France-)

2014년 6월 26일 판결에서 유럽인권재판소는 대리잉태를 금지하는 행위규제를 위반한 것과 그로 인하여 출생한 자의 친자관계 결정은 다르다는 점을 확인하였고, 후자를 판단함에 있어 중요한 기준이 자녀의 최대 복리라는 점을 명확히 하였다. 2014년 6월 26일 유럽인권재판소의 판결이 대리모계약을 허용하는 국가에서의 대리출산을 통해 태어난 대리출생자왿� 유전적 관계를 가지는(대리모계약을 금지하는 프랑스 국적의) 의뢰부왿�의 실친자관계를 인정하였다는 점에서, 향후 대리모계약을 허용하는 국가에서의 대리출산은 더 증가할 것으로 예상된다.
우리는 프랑스왿� 달리 대리잉태의 행위규제에 대한 입법이 부존재 하지만, 대리잉태의 행위규제의 문제왿� 대리모 계약에 의해 태어난 자녀의 친자관계의 결정문제는 상호 독립적인 문제이므로 후자의 논의는 전자왿� 별도로 논의될 수 있다. 즉 우리의 경우에도 대리잉태의 금지 여부왿� 관계없이 대리출생자왿� 의뢰부모왿�의 친자관계에 대한 논의는 현행법 체계 안에서 해석으로 해결할 수 있을 것이다. 그러나 글로벌화 된 세계에서 진정으로 아이를 원하는 커플이 국가 법질서 간의 차이를 이용하여 대리잉태를 통해 친자관계를 형성하려는 시도를 우리는 방관만 할 수 없을 것이다. 유럽인권재판소의 두 판결이 국내의 대리모 논쟁과 관련된 논의를 한발 더 앞으로 끌어당기는 계기가 되기를 기대해 보며, 우리 입법자는 대리잉태의 허용여부에 대한 사회적 함의를 충분히 검토한 후 최대한 신속하게 입법적 결단을 해야 할 것이다.

With its decisions of 26 June 2014 in Mennesson v France and Labassee v France, the European Court of Human Rights finally gave a glimmer of hope for the “ghost children” whose parentage is not recognised in France. The European Court clearly condemned France for her refusal, and indeed that of the Court of Cassation in its decisions of 6 March 2011, to recognise the filiation of children born to surrogate mothers overseas with their “intended” French parents. In both scenarios, the applicants–the parents and children–claimed that there had been an infringement of their right to respect for private and family life owing to the impossibility for them to secure recognition in France of the parentage legally established overseas. The Court proceeded with the primacy of the child’s interests, firstly on the basis of the right to family life of all applicants, then on that of the right to private life of the children alone.
Firstly, according to the Court, the absence of recognition of parentage under French law necessarily affected the family life of the applicants. More specifically, the Court noted that the applicants were able to live together in France “in conditions broadly comparable to those of other families and that there is nothing to suggest that they are at risk of being separated by the authorities on account of their situation under French law”. It therefore deduced that “the situation brought about by the Court of Cassation’s conclusion in the present case strikes a fair balance between the interests of the applicants and those of the State in so far as their right to respect for family life is concerned”.
Secondly, the European Court generally characterised an infringement of the children’s right to private life without distinguishing between maternal or paternal filiation. It noted that the children found themselves in a position of legal uncertainty as to their parentage owing to the refusal on the part of the French authorities to grant any effect to the American ruling, as the French authorities, fully aware that they had been identified elsewhere as the children of their intended parents, nevertheless denied them that status in the French legal system. The Court considered that the same contradiction constituted an infringement of their identity in French society and the effects of the failure to recognise their parentage in France had consequences not only for the parents “who have chosen a particular method of assisted reproduction prohibited by the French authorities”, but also for the children. This therefore raises the issue of the compatibility of that situation with the children’s best interests, respect for which must guide any decision concerning them.
Put it in a nutshell, the Court shall draw the appropriate conclusions from the ECHR’s judgment by no longer challenging paternal filiations established with regard to children born as a result of surrogacy agreements made overseas; this would effectively give precedence to the child’s best interests, assessed in practical terms, as required under Article 3 (1) of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.