{"id":811,"date":"2023-12-19T22:20:53","date_gmt":"2023-12-20T01:20:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.globalcrossings.com.br\/?p=811"},"modified":"2023-12-19T22:20:53","modified_gmt":"2023-12-20T01:20:53","slug":"newsletter-novembro-2023","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.globalcrossings.com.br\/en\/2023\/12\/19\/newsletter-novembro-2023\/","title":{"rendered":"NEWSLETTER NOVEMBRO\/2023"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

PROJETO CLOBAL CROSSINGS<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

C\u00c1TEDRA JEAN MONNET\/UFU<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

COORDENA\u00c7\u00c3O: PROFA. Dra. CLAUDIA LOUREIRO<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

ORGANIZA\u00c7\u00c3O: Ma. MARCELA BREY<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

NEWSLETTER NOVEMBRO\/2023<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

SE\u00c7\u00c3O 1: PRINCIPAIS JULGAMENTOS DO TRIBUNAL DE JUSTI\u00c7A DA UNI\u00c3O EUROPEIA<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

EIXO TRANS<\/u><\/strong>H<\/u><\/em><\/strong>UMANIDADE <\/u><\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ac\u00f3rd\u00e3o do Tribunal de Justi\u00e7a no processo C-307\/22<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Prote\u00e7\u00e3o de dados pessoais: o paciente tem o direito de obter gratuitamente uma primeira c\u00f3pia do seu prontu\u00e1rio m\u00e9dico<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Texto e tradu\u00e7\u00e3o livre de Marcela Bittencourt Brey, mestra em Direitos Humanos pela Universidade de S\u00e3o Paulo. Pesquisadora do Projeto Global Crossings <\/em>da Universidade Federal de Uberl\u00e2ndia, C\u00e1tedra Jean Monnet \u2013 Uni\u00e3o Europeia.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

O Tribunal de Justi\u00e7a da Uni\u00e3o Europeia decidiu no processo C-307\/22, conforme Ac\u00f3rd\u00e3o proferido por meio do julgamento ocorrido no dia 26 de outubro de 2023, quest\u00e3o relativa \u00e0 gratuidade do acesso ao prontu\u00e1rio m\u00e9dico pelo paciente. O caso envolveu um profissional da \u00e1rea da sa\u00fade (dentista). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

O paciente pediu uma c\u00f3pia de seu prontu\u00e1rio m\u00e9dico. Todavia, o profissional exigiu que as informa\u00e7\u00f5es seriam fornecidas, desde que os custos referentes \u00e0s c\u00f3pias dos registros de sa\u00fade fossem cobertos. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

A exig\u00eancia pelo pagamento n\u00e3o \u00e9 ilegal. H\u00e1 previs\u00e3o na legisla\u00e7\u00e3o alem\u00e3. Inconformado, o paciente ingressou com a\u00e7\u00e3o nos tribunais alem\u00e3es. A Corte alem\u00e3 submeteu o caso ao Tribunal de Justi\u00e7a da Uni\u00e3o Europeia, tendo em vista que a quest\u00e3o dependeria de an\u00e1lise e interpreta\u00e7\u00e3o das disposi\u00e7\u00f5es do direito da Uni\u00e3o Europeia, em especial, o General Data Protection Regulation<\/em> (GDPR). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

O GDPR <\/em>\u00e9 v\u00e1lido no seio da Uni\u00e3o Europeia. Est\u00e1 em vigor desde 24 de maio de 2016 e \u00e9 aplic\u00e1vel desde 25 de maio de 2018 a empresas e aos cidad\u00e3os. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

O Regulamento \u00e9 considerado uma medida elementar para auxiliar a refor\u00e7ar os direitos fundamentais das pessoas na era digital. Ele visa tamb\u00e9m ser o instrumento a facilitar a atividade comercial e elucidar as normas aplic\u00e1veis \u00e0s empresas e aos organismos p\u00fablicos num \u00fanico mercado digital. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Desta forma, considerando que a Corte alem\u00e3 suscitou que a controv\u00e9rsia recai sobre quest\u00e3o prejudicial, o Tribunal de Justi\u00e7a da Uni\u00e3o Europeia pronunciou-se a respeito. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Visando dirimir o conflito, o Tribunal de Justi\u00e7a da Uni\u00e3o Europeia reconheceu em seu ac\u00f3rd\u00e3o, que o GDPR <\/em>consagra o direito do paciente de obter uma primeira c\u00f3pia do seu prontu\u00e1rio m\u00e9dico sem que tal fato implique no pagamento de quaisquer valores. O Tribunal asseverou, tamb\u00e9m, que o profissional da sa\u00fade somente poderia cobrar uma taxa quando o paciente j\u00e1 tiver obtido, gratuitamente, uma primeira c\u00f3pia de seus dados de sa\u00fade (seu prontu\u00e1rio). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Por fim, a decis\u00e3o do Tribunal de Justi\u00e7a da Uni\u00e3o Europeia no processo C-307\/22 determinou que o paciente tem direito de obter todos os dados insertos nos registros m\u00e9dicos. Portanto, a compreens\u00e3o pelo direito do paciente aos seus dados pessoais se estende a tudo o que for relacionado \u00e0s informa\u00e7\u00f5es de sa\u00fade, de modo que seu prontu\u00e1rio m\u00e9dico contenha informa\u00e7\u00f5es essenciais sobre diagn\u00f3sticos, resultados de exames, avalia\u00e7\u00f5es de outros m\u00e9dicos assistentes, bem como outros tratamentos ou prescri\u00e7\u00f5es fornecidas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

REFER\u00caNCIAS<\/strong>: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

TRIBUNAL DE JUSTI\u00c7A DA UNI\u00c3O EUROPEIA. Ac\u00f3rd\u00e3o <\/strong>no processo C-307\/22<\/strong> do Tribunal de Justi\u00e7a. <\/strong>26 de outubro de 2023. Dispon\u00edvel em: https:\/\/curia.europa.eu\/juris\/document\/document.jsf;jsessionid=EEF3F45D476085A9ADBA8A86C66FF78D?text=&docid=279125&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=100225<\/a>. https:\/\/curia.europa.eu\/jcms\/upload\/docs\/application\/pdf\/2023-10\/cp230161en.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

UNI\u00c3O EUROPEIA. EUR-Lex. Regulamento (EU) 2016\/679 do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho de 27 de abril de 2016, relativo \u00e0 prote\u00e7\u00e3o das pessoas singulares no que di respeito ao tratamento de dados pessoais e \u00e0 livre circula\u00e7\u00e3o desses dados, e que revoga a Diretiva 95\/46\/CE (Regulamento Geral de Prote\u00e7\u00e3o de Dados). <\/strong>Dispon\u00edvel em: https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/EN\/TXT\/?uri=CELEX:32016R0679<\/a> . Acesso em: 14 nov. 2023.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Vers\u00e3o em Ingl\u00eas<\/u><\/strong><\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

SECTION 1: MAIN JUDGMENTS OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

TRANSHUMANITY<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. <\/strong>KEY JUDGMENTS OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    Judgment of the Court of Justice in case C-307\/22<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Protection of personal data: a patient has the right to obtain a first copy of his or her medical records free of charge. <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Text and free translation by Marcela Bittencourt Brey, master\u2019s degree in Human Rights from the University of S\u00e3o Paulo. Researcher of the Global Crossings Project at the Federal University of Uberl\u00e2ndia, Jean Monnet Chair \u2013 European Union.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The Court of Justice of the European Union decided in case C-307\/22, according to the ruling handed down in the trial held on October 26, 2023, an issue relating to free access to medical records by patients. The case involved a healthcare professional (dentist).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The patient asked for a copy of his medical record. However, the professional demanded that the information would be provided, as long as the costs related to copies of the health records were covered.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Demanding payment is not illegal. There is a provision in German legislation. Unsatisfied, the patient took action in the German courts. The German Court submitted the case to the Court of Justice of the European Union, considering that the issue would depend on the analysis and interpretation of the provisions of European Union law, in particular, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The GDPR is valid within the European Union. It has been in force since May 24, 2016 and has been applicable since May 25, 2018 to companies and citizens.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The Regulation is considered an elementary measure to help reinforce people’s fundamental rights in this digital era. It also aims to be the instrument to facilitate commercial activity and clarify the standards applicable to companies and public bodies in a single digital market.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Thus, considering that the German Court raised that the controversy concerns a preliminary question, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled on the matter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Aiming to resolve the conflict, the Court of Justice of the European Union recognized in its ruling that the GDPR enshrines the patient’s right to obtain a first copy of their medical records without this requiring them to pay any amounts. The Court also stated that the health professional could only charge a fee when the patient has already obtained, free of charge, a first copy of their health data (their medical record).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Finally, the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union in case C-307\/22 determined that the patient has the right to obtain all data included in medical records. Therefore, understanding the patient’s right to their personal data extends to everything related to health information, so that their medical record may contain essential information about diagnoses, test results, evaluations by other attending physicians, as well as other treatments or prescriptions provided.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    REFERENCES<\/strong>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION. Judgment of the Court in Case<\/strong> C-307\/22<\/strong>. <\/strong>Luxembourg, 26 October 2023. Retrieved from: https:\/\/curia.europa.eu\/juris\/document\/document.jsf;jsessionid=EEF3F45D476085A9ADBA8A86C66FF78D?text=&docid=279125&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=100225<\/a>.https:\/\/curia.europa.eu\/jcms\/upload\/docs\/application\/pdf\/2023-10\/cp230161en.pdf<\/a>. Accessed on: Nov. 14, 2023.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    EUROPEAN UNION. EUR-Lex. Regulation (EU) 2016\/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95\/46\/EC (General Data Protection Regulation). <\/strong>Retrieved from: https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/EN\/TXT\/?uri=CELEX:32016R0679<\/a>. Accessed on: Nov. 14, 2023.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    SE\u00c7\u00c3O 2: CORTE EUROPEIA DE DIREITOS HUMANOS \u2013 PRINCIPAIS JULGADOS  <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    EIXO: TRANS<\/u><\/strong>H<\/u><\/em><\/strong>UMANIDADE<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

      \n
    1. <\/strong>CASE OF EVANS V. THE UNITED KINGDOM. <\/strong>Application n. 6339\/05<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

      Uma margem de aprecia\u00e7\u00e3o do Estado: dilemas bio\u00e9ticos entre o fim do projeto parental, a autonomia reprodutiva e a destina\u00e7\u00e3o de embri\u00f5es<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Texto e tradu\u00e7\u00e3o livre de Izabella Vieira Nunes, mestranda na Universidade Federal de Uberl\u00e2ndia (UFU), Bolsista CAPES\/BRASIL. Pesquisadora do Projeto Global Crossings <\/em>da Universidade Federal de Uberl\u00e2ndia, C\u00e1tedra Jean Monnet \u2013 Uni\u00e3o Europeia.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Em recente posicionamento, a Corte Europeia de Direitos Humanos (CEDH), ao analisar a autonomia reprodutiva e o fim do projeto parental, afirmou tratar-se de mat\u00e9ria com margem de aprecia\u00e7\u00e3o do Estados-parte diante da aus\u00eancia de consensos cient\u00edficos, jur\u00eddicos ou pol\u00edticos sobre o in\u00edcio da vida [1]<\/sup><\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Por esse motivo, caberia ao Reino Unido, no caso ajuizado por Natallie Evans, analisar a melhor resolu\u00e7\u00e3o ao conflito suscitado. Entretanto, as circunst\u00e2ncias levadas ao direito ingl\u00eas configuram-se como verdadeiros dilemas bio\u00e9ticos, o que ser\u00e1 melhor explicitado em seguida.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                  Ap\u00f3s o diagn\u00f3stico de c\u00e2ncer ovariano, Evans e seu noivo \u00e0 \u00e9poca, Howard Johnston, optaram por t\u00e9cnicas de reprodu\u00e7\u00e3o humana assistida para assegurar a \u00fanica possibilidade de procria\u00e7\u00e3o hom\u00f3loga do casal, haja vista que o tratamento repercute em infertilidade, devido \u00e0 remo\u00e7\u00e3o dos ov\u00e1rios. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

                  Em seguida, os embri\u00f5es obtidos com o material gen\u00e9tico dos interessados foram criopreservados. No entanto, ap\u00f3s a cirurgia de remo\u00e7\u00e3o de parte essencial do aparelho reprodutivo de Evans, o casal se separou e Johnston pleiteou a destrui\u00e7\u00e3o dos embri\u00f5es na cl\u00ednica, removendo seu consentimento para a utiliza\u00e7\u00e3o desses. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

                  No direito local, havia previs\u00e3o expressa quanto \u00e0 imprescindibilidade do consentimento dos interessados para prosseguir com os procedimentos de fertiliza\u00e7\u00e3o in vitro<\/em>. Caso contr\u00e1rio, os embri\u00f5es seriam destru\u00eddos. Estando diante de sua \u00fanica possibilidade f\u00e1tica \u00e0 \u00e9poca de exercer seu direito reprodutivo tal como planejou, Evans requisitou autoriza\u00e7\u00e3o judicial para implantar os embri\u00f5es obtidos.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                  O pedido foi negado sob a justificativa de impossibilidade de ir contra a legisla\u00e7\u00e3o vigente, motivo pelo qual a autora recorreu \u00e0 Corte EDH. Todavia, mais uma vez, viu-se diante de uma negativa a sua autonomia reprodutiva por maioria de votos. A revoga\u00e7\u00e3o do consentimento seria, pois, mais importante naquela conjuntura para a justi\u00e7a inglesa.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                  Diante da aus\u00eancia de consensos acerca do in\u00edcio da vida e demais impasses bio\u00e9ticos naquela conjuntura, a Corte EDH lastreou sua decis\u00e3o no instituto de margem de aprecia\u00e7\u00e3o dos Estados, que, para Pacheco [2]<\/sup><\/a>: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Compreende-se a Teoria da Margem Nacional de Aprecia\u00e7\u00e3o como: determinada lacuna, recuo ou espa\u00e7o discricion\u00e1rio \u00e0s normas e acordos internacionais conferidos aos Estados-Membros no \u00e2mbito das Cortes Interamericana e Europeia de Direitos Humanos. Esta possui o objetivo de balancear a uniformidade e diversidade dentro do sistema internacional, \u00e9 um mecanismo de preserva\u00e7\u00e3o das variedades culturais na esfera dos direitos humanos e possui grande rela\u00e7\u00e3o com a subsidiariedade da jurisdi\u00e7\u00e3o do direito internacional, apesar de permanecer submetida ao controle internacional sobre a validade das decis\u00f5es tomadas pelas jurisdi\u00e7\u00f5es nacionais.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

                  Sob esta l\u00f3gica, o consenso como elemento a ser observado refor\u00e7a a tese da subsidiariedade de atua\u00e7\u00e3o da Corte EDH[3]<\/sup><\/a>, um mecanismo de autoconten\u00e7\u00e3o no exerc\u00edcio interpretativo do direito nacional, a fim de evitar um vi\u00e9s de atua\u00e7\u00e3o arbitr\u00e1ria do \u00f3rg\u00e3o. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

                  N\u00e3o satisfeita, Evans encaminhou a discuss\u00e3o de suas circunst\u00e2ncias para a Grande C\u00e2mara do Tribunal Europeu dos Direitos Humanos, todavia, o desfecho foi similar \u00e0quele anteriormente obtido. A desist\u00eancia do projeto parental se sobrep\u00f5e \u00e0 autonomia reprodutiva da autora na conjuntura relatada.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                  Conclui-se que o caso descrito \u00e9 paradigm\u00e1tico no \u00e2mbito internacional, haja vista que convida para reflex\u00f5es sobre a ocorr\u00eancia de eventual exclus\u00e3o reprodutiva nas hip\u00f3teses de desist\u00eancia do projeto parental por um dos interessados. A autonomia reprodutiva conflita com a revoga\u00e7\u00e3o do consentimento e, j\u00e1 existindo os embri\u00f5es, traz \u00e0 tona discuss\u00f5es sobre o in\u00edcio da vida e a destina\u00e7\u00e3o final desses.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      REFER\u00caNCIAS<\/strong>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      ECHR. European Court of Human Rights. Case of Evans v. The United Kingdom. Application n. 6339\/05. Strasbourg, 2007. Dispon\u00edvel em: https:\/\/hudoc.echr.coe.int\/rus<\/a>. Acesso em: 11 out. 2023.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      MORTATI, Ana Fl\u00e1via Terra Alves; ZERBINI, Maiara Santana. Reprodu\u00e7\u00e3o humana assistida e o destino dos embri\u00f5es em caso de separa\u00e7\u00e3o conjugal: um estudo \u00e0 luz dos princ\u00edpios da parentalidade respons\u00e1vel e do planejamento familiar como forma de efetiva\u00e7\u00e3o da dignidade humana. In: PAIANO, Daniela Braga; PAV\u00c3O, Juliana Carvalho; ESPOLADOR, Rita de C\u00e1ssia Resquetti Tarifa (org.). Quest\u00f5es atuais dos neg\u00f3cios jur\u00eddicos \u00e0 luz do Biodireito<\/strong>: discuss\u00f5es sobre os neg\u00f3cios biojur\u00eddicos. 3. ed. Londrina: Thoth, 2021. 152 p. (Vol. III). ISBN: 978-65-5959-133-6.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      PACHECO, Taina de Lucena. A margem nacional de aprecia\u00e7\u00e3o e o espa\u00e7o discricion\u00e1rio de atua\u00e7\u00e3o dos Estados nas Cortes Interamericana e Europeia de Direitos Humanos. Trabalho de Conclus\u00e3o de Curso.<\/strong> Universidade Federal de S\u00e3o Paulo, UNIFESP. S\u00e3o Paulo\/SP, 2021. Dispon\u00edvel em: https:\/\/repositorio.unifesp.br\/handle\/11600\/61890<\/a>. Acesso em: 11 nov. 2023.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      PITHAN, L\u00edvia Haygert; PASSOS, Marianna Gazal. Autonomia reprodutiva e a revoga\u00e7\u00e3o do consentimento na reprodu\u00e7\u00e3o assistida. Revista da Defensoria P\u00fablica do Estado do Rio Grande do Sul<\/strong>, Porto Alegre, n. 27, p. 307\u2013323, 2021. Dispon\u00edvel em: https:\/\/revista.defensoria.rs.def.br\/defensoria\/article\/view\/290. Acesso em: 11 out. 2023.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      SARAIVA, Bianca Cart\u00e1genes. A margem de aprecia\u00e7\u00e3o dos Estados no Direito internacional dos Direitos Humanos e a prote\u00e7\u00e3o m\u00ednima. Disserta\u00e7\u00e3o de Mestrado<\/strong>. Universidade de Lisboa. Lisboa, Portugal, 2021. Dispon\u00edvel em: http:\/\/hdl.handle.net\/10451\/52770<\/a>. Acesso em: 11 nov. 2023.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Vers\u00e3o em Ingl\u00eas<\/u><\/strong><\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

      SECTION 2: EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS \u2013 MAIN JUDGMENTS<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

      AXIS: TRANSHUMANITY<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

        \n
      1. <\/strong>CASE OF EVANS V. THE UNITED KINGDOM. <\/strong>Application n. 6339\/05<\/strong>. <\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

        A margin of appreciation for the State: bioethical dilemmas between the end of the parental project, reproductive autonomy and the destination of embryos.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

        Text and free translation by Izabella Vieira Nunes, master\u2019s degree Student, Law School, University Federal of Uberlandia, Brazil, and CAPES Scholarship, Brazil. Researcher of the Global Crossings Project at the Federal University of Uberlandia, Jean Monnet Chair \u2013 European Union.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        In a recent position, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), when analyzing reproductive autonomy and the end of the parental project, stated that this is a matter with a margin of appreciation for the States Parties in the absence of scientific, legal or political consensus on the beginning of life [4]<\/sup><\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        For this reason, it would be up to the United Kingdom, in the case brought by Natallie Evans, to analyze the best resolution to the conflict raised. However, the circumstances brought before English law constitute real bioethical dilemmas, which will be explained in greater detail below.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        After being diagnosed with ovarian cancer, Evans and her fianc\u00e9 at the time, Howard Johnston, opted for assisted human reproduction techniques to ensure the couple’s only chance of homologous procreation, given that the treatment resulted in infertility due to the removal of the ovaries.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        The embryos obtained with the genetic material of the couple were then cryopreserved. However, after surgery to remove an essential part of Evans’ reproductive system, the couple separated and Johnston claimed the embryos were destroyed at the clinic, removing his consent to their use.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        Local law made express provision for the consent of the parties concerned to proceed with in vitro fertilization procedures. Otherwise, the embryos would be destroyed. Faced with her only factual possibility at the time to exercise her reproductive right as she had planned, Evans requested judicial authorization to implant the embryos she had obtained.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        The request was denied on the grounds that it was impossible to go against current legislation, which is why the plaintiff appealed to the EDH Court. However, once again, her reproductive autonomy was denied by a majority vote. The revocation of consent was therefore more important at that juncture for the English courts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        Faced with the lack of consensus on the beginning of life and other bioethical impasses at that time, the Court based its decision on the institute of the margin of appreciation of states, which, for Pacheco [5]<\/sup><\/a>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        The National Margin of Appreciation Theory is recognize as a gap, retreat or discretionary space in the international norms and agreements granted to Member States within the scope of the International Courts of Human Rights. This aims to balance uniformity and diversity within the international system, is a mechanism for the preservation of cultural varieties in the sphere of Human Rights and has a strong relationship with the subsidiarity of the jurisdiction of International Law, although it remains subject to supranational control over the validity of decisions taken by national jurisdictions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        Under this logic, consensus as an element to be observed reinforces the thesis of the subsidiarity of the EDH Court’s action [6]<\/sup><\/a>, a mechanism of self-restraint in the interpretative exercise of national law, in order to avoid a bias towards arbitrary action by the body.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        Unsatisfied, Evans referred the discussion of her circumstances to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, but the outcome was similar to that previously obtained. Giving up the parental project overrides the author’s reproductive autonomy in the situation described.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        It can be concluded that the case described is a paradigm in the international arena, as it invites reflection on the occurrence of possible reproductive exclusion in the event that one of the parties withdraws from the parental project. Reproductive autonomy conflicts with the revocation of consent and, with embryos already in existence, this brings up discussions about the beginning of life and their final destination.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        REFERENCES<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

        ECHR. European Court of Human Rights. Case of Evans v. The United Kingdom<\/strong>. Application n. 6339\/05. Strasbourg, 2007. Retrieved from: https:\/\/hudoc.echr.coe.int\/rus<\/a>. Accessed on: Oct. 11, 2023.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        MORTATI, Ana Fl\u00e1via Terra Alves; ZERBINI, Maiara Santana. Reprodu\u00e7\u00e3o humana assistida e o destino dos embri\u00f5es em caso de separa\u00e7\u00e3o conjugal: um estudo \u00e0 luz dos princ\u00edpios da parentalidade respons\u00e1vel e do planejamento familiar como forma de efetiva\u00e7\u00e3o da dignidade humana. In: PAIANO, Daniela Braga; PAV\u00c3O, Juliana Carvalho; ESPOLADOR, Rita de C\u00e1ssia Resquetti Tarifa (org.). Quest\u00f5es atuais dos neg\u00f3cios jur\u00eddicos \u00e0 luz do Biodireito<\/strong>: discuss\u00f5es sobre os neg\u00f3cios biojur\u00eddicos. 3. ed. Londrina: Thoth, 2021. 152 p. (Vol. III). ISBN: 978-65-5959-133-6.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        PACHECO, Taina de Lucena. A margem nacional de aprecia\u00e7\u00e3o e o espa\u00e7o discricion\u00e1rio de atua\u00e7\u00e3o dos Estados nas Cortes Interamericana e Europeia de Direitos Humanos. Trabalho de Conclus\u00e3o de Curso.<\/strong> Universidade Federal de S\u00e3o Paulo, UNIFESP. S\u00e3o Paulo\/SP, 2021. Retrieved from: https:\/\/repositorio.unifesp.br\/handle\/11600\/61890<\/a>. Accessed on: Nov. 11, 2023.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        PITHAN, L\u00edvia Haygert; PASSOS, Marianna Gazal. Autonomia reprodutiva e a revoga\u00e7\u00e3o do consentimento na reprodu\u00e7\u00e3o assistida. Revista da Defensoria P\u00fablica do Estado do Rio Grande do Sul<\/strong>, Porto Alegre, n. 27, p. 307\u2013323, 2021. Retrieved from: https:\/\/revista.defensoria.rs.def.br\/defensoria\/article\/view\/290. Accessed on: Oct. 11, 2023.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        SARAIVA, Bianca Cart\u00e1genes. A margem de aprecia\u00e7\u00e3o dos Estados no Direito internacional dos Direitos Humanos e a prote\u00e7\u00e3o m\u00ednima. Disserta\u00e7\u00e3o de Mestrado<\/strong>. Universidade de Lisboa. Lisboa, Portugal, 2021. Retrieved from:http:\/\/hdl.handle.net\/10451\/52770<\/a>. Accessed on: Nov. 11, 2023.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        EIXO CIDADANIA GLOBAL<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n