Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T22:04:08.077Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Embryonic Stem Cell Research according to German and European Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Christian Starck

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

For some years now, reproductive medicine has been capable of performing the act of human procreation in vitro, fusing the female ovum and the male semen outside of the human body. The embryo created by this process is then “implanted” into the uterus of the woman who had previously provided the ovum. This technique serves to overcome certain physical defects - such as a malfunction of the fallopian tubes - of a couple that wants to have children.

Type
Articles
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 7 , Issue 7 , 01 July 2006 , pp. 625 - 656
Copyright
Copyright © 2006 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 For a summary of the existing scientific-technological difficulties, see Ralf Müller-Terpitz, Die neuen Empfehlungen der DFG zur Forschung mit menschlichen Stammzellen, 34 Wissenschaftsrecht (WissR) 271, 273 (2001); Ernst-Ludwig Winnacker, Human Cloning from a Scientific Perspective, in Human Dignity and Human Cloning 55 (Silja Vöneky & Rüdiger Wolfram eds., 2004).Google Scholar

2 The description of this process has been taken from the report that dealt with the question of whether there was a need for the legislature to amend the Embryo Protection Act in the wake of the - present and foreseeable future - developments in animal cloning and the techniques used. BTDrucks 13/1/263 at 8. See also the description in the DFG statement about “Human Embryo Stem Cells”, available at www.dfg.de/aktuell/stellungnahmen/lebenswissenschaften/eszeit_d_99.html, at p.2. See also Jan Schindehütte & Peter Gruß, Die molekulare Basis für regenerative Medizin, in Wissenschaften 2001 - Diagnosen und Prognosen 224 (Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen ed., 2001).Google Scholar

3 See recommendations from 3 May 2001. See also Ralf Müller-Terpitz, Die neuen Empfehlungen der DFG zur Forschung mitmenschlichen Stammzellen, 34 Wissenschaftsrecht (WissR) 271 (2001).Google Scholar

4 Treaty Establishing the European Community, Nov. 10, 1997, 1997 O.J. (C 340) Part 3, Title XVIII.Google Scholar

5 See Trute, Hans-Heinrich, EC Treaty art. 163, in EUV/EGV Kommentar margin note 7, 10 (Rudolf Streinz ed., 2003); on the occasion of the Annual Report of the Commission 2001, at 8, COM (2001), 756 final.(Dec. 12, 2001).Google Scholar

6 Trute, , EC Treaty art. 163, id. at margin note 13.Google Scholar

7 Resolution of the European Parliament and Council (EG) No. 182/1999 of 22 December 1998, 1999 O.J. (L 26) 6.Google Scholar

8 Trute, , EC Treaty art. 163, supra note 5, at margin note 13.Google Scholar

9 See also Jens Kersten, Das Klonen von Menschen 201 (2004).Google Scholar

10 See also id at 202.Google Scholar

11 Resolution of the European Parliament and Council (EC) No. 1513/2002, 2002 O.J. (L 232) 2.Google Scholar

12 Resolution of the European Parliament and Council (EC) No. 2002/835, 2002 O.J. (L 294) 4. See The Inter-institutional File 2001/0122 (CNS), Brussels, 9 August 2002, 11385/02, p. 7 (“During the implementation of this programme and in the research activities arising from it, fundamental ethical principles are to be respected. These include the principles reflected in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, including the following: protection of human dignity and human life … in accordance with Community Law and relevant international conventions and codes of conduct …”).Google Scholar

13 Corresponding passages can be found on page 8 of the Inter-institutional Memorandum. See id.Google Scholar

14 See Thomas GROß, Die Autonomie der Wissenschaft im europäischen Rechtsvergleich 142 (1992).Google Scholar

15 Like in the Preamble for the Charter of Fundamental Rights.Google Scholar

16 Starck, Christian, Artikel 5, in 1 Grundgesetz Kommentar margin note 418 (Hermann von Mangoldt, Friedrich Klein and Christian Starck eds., 5th ed. 2005).Google Scholar

17 See Kühling, Jürgen, Grundrechte, in Europäisches Verfassungsrecht 583, 616- 624 (Bogdandy ed., 2003).Google Scholar

18 Case 4/73, Nold v. Commission, 1974 E.C.R. 491, margin note 13.Google Scholar

19 Frowein, Jochen Abr., Article 2, in Europäische MenschenRechtsKonvention - EMRK Kommentar margin note 3 (Jochen Abr. Frowein & Wolfgang Peukert eds., 2nd ed. 1996).Google Scholar

20 Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with Regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine on the Prohibition of Cloning Human Beings, April 4, 1997, Europ. T.S. No. 164.Google Scholar

21 These are Denmark, Greece, San Marino, Slovakia and Slovenia. In the meantime, more countries have ratified the Convention, by the end of September 2005, 18 countries had done so.Google Scholar

22 The English version is legally binding.Google Scholar

23 Additional Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with Regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine on the Prohibition of Cloning Human Beings, January 12, 1998, Europ. T.S. No. 168.Google Scholar

24 Direct quote from the English text.Google Scholar

25 The English version is legally binding.Google Scholar

26 Switzerland, for instance, a member of the Council of Europe, embodied embryo protection in its constitution in an amendment from 18 December 1998. “All types of cloning and interventions in the genetic heritage of human germ cells and embryos are prohibited.” Clause 2c ends: “… only the number of human ova may be developed into embryos outside the woman's body as can be immediately implanted into her.” Bundesverfassung der Schweizerischen Eidgenoosnschaft [BV] / Constitution federal de law Conféderation Suisse [Cst] [Constitution], December 18, 1998, SR 101, art. 119 section 2 lit. a (Switz).Google Scholar

27 For a detailed explanation see Kersten, supra note 9, at 83.Google Scholar

28 See Rudolf Streinz, Charta der Grundrechte der Europäische Union, in EUV/EGV Kommentar 2573 (Rudolf Streinz ed., 2003).Google Scholar

29 So far this is the prevailing opinion. For additional information, see Thomas Schmitz, Die EU-Grundrechtecharta aus grundrechtsdogmatischer und grundrechtstheoretischer Sicht, 56 Juristenzeitung (JZ) 833 (2001); Kyrill-Alexander Schwarz, Therapeutisches Klonen, 89 Kritische Vierteljahresschrift für Gesetzgebung und Rechtwissenschaft (KritV) 182, 192 (2001); Rudolf Streinz, Article 3 Charter of Fundamental Rights, in EUV/EGV Kommentar margin note 2, 5 (Rudolf Streinz ed., 2003); Matthias Pechstein, Article 6 EUV, in EUV/EGV Kommentar margin note 17 (Rudolf Streinz ed., 2003).Google Scholar

30 Presidium of the Convent, CHARTE 4473/00, CONVENT 49, p. 5.Google Scholar

31 See Thomas Oppermann, Europarecht margin note 586 (2nd ed., 1999); Werner Schroeder, Article 249 EGV, in EUV/EGV Kommentar margin note 32 (Rudolf Streinz ed., 2003).Google Scholar

32 1997 O.J. (C 115) 14, 4 Consideration B. The awkward wording suggesting that human experiments are “required” is common to the German, English and French versions.Google Scholar

33 1998 O.J. (C 34) 164 Consideration B.Google Scholar

34 Not published in the Official Journal. See www.euro-parl.eu.inter.Google Scholar

35 See http://www2.europarleu.int/omk/sipa-de2.Google Scholar

36 Similarly, , Kersten, supra note 9, at 119.Google Scholar

37 1998 O.J. (L 213) 13.Google Scholar

38 See Kersten supra note 9, at 120 - 193.Google Scholar

39 Resolution from March 12, 1997.Google Scholar

40 See Schmitz, , supra note 29, at 836.Google Scholar

41 See Kersten supra note 9, at 88.Google Scholar

42 Borowsky, , Artikel 1, in Kommentar zur Charta der Grundrechte der Europäischen Union 45 (Jürgen Meyer ed., 2003).Google Scholar

43 Streinz, Rudolf, Article 1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, in EUV/EGV Kommentar margin note 1, 2581 (Rudolf Streinz ed., 2003).Google Scholar

44 See the detailed explanation in Kersten, supra note 9, at 403, 554.Google Scholar

45 According to the report by Christian Schwägerl in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung there are eleven states. Christian Schwägerl, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ), November 27, 2004, at 12. See also CSL, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ), November 20, 2004, at 6.Google Scholar

46 See Kersten, supra note 9.Google Scholar

47 Id. at 584.Google Scholar

48 Embryonenschutzgesetz (ESchG- Embryo Protection Act), December 13, 1990, BGBl. I at 2747.Google Scholar

49 This definition is, in essence, repeated by § 3 no. 4 of the Stem Cell Act.Google Scholar

50 Rolf Keller, et al., Kommentar zum Embryonenschutzgesetz § 1, margin note 4 (1992). The same judgment of value provides the basis for Article 119 no. 2 lit. a and c of the Swiss Federal Constitution, which prohibits all types of cloning and limits the amount of embryos created during the act of in vitro fertilization to the number of embryos which can be immediately implanted into the woman.Google Scholar

51 Stammzellgesetz (StZG- Stem Cell Act), June 28, 2002, BGBl. I at 2277.Google Scholar

52 Ipsen, Jörn, Der “verfassungsrechtliche Status” des Embryos in vitro, 56 Juristenzeitung (JZ) 989, 995 (2001); Kloepfer, Michael, Humangenetik als Verfassungsfrage, 57 Juristenzeitung (JZ) 417, 425, 427 (2002); Heun, Werner, Embryonenforschung und Verfassung - Lebensrecht und Menschenwürde des Embryos, 57 Juristenzeitung (JZ) 517, 523 (2002).Google Scholar

53 Forschungsgemeinschaft, Deutsche, Recommended Amendment to the Embryo Protection Act, 34 Wissenschafsrecht (WissR) 287 (2001).Google Scholar

54 Starck, Christian, Article 1, in 1 Grundgesetz Kommentar margin note 14 (Hermann von Mangoldt, Friedrich Klein and Christian Starck eds., 5th ed. 2005).Google Scholar

55 Horst Dreier's wording. See Horst Dreier, Article 1, in 1 GG Kommentar margin note 66 (Horst Dreier ed., 2nd ed. 2004).Google Scholar

56 According to Dreier. See id. at margin note 64.Google Scholar

57 Taupitz, Jochen, Der rechtliche Rahmen des Klonens zu therapeutischen Zwecken, 54 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 3433, 3438 (2001). On the basis of a speech by Huber, Johannes. See Johannes Huber, Address: Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Embryonenforschung aus der Sicht der Medizin.Google Scholar

58 Wolfram, Rüdiger, 27 Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte 4 (2001); see also Taupitz, , supra note 57, at 3438.Google Scholar

59 Gould, Stephen Jay, Baers Gesetz, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ), August 30, 2001, at 32.Google Scholar

60 Nida-Rümelin, Süddeutsche Zeitung, February 3/4, 2001.Google Scholar

61 Heun, , supra note 52, at 519.Google Scholar

62 For a detailed view on this, see Christian Starck, Verfassungsrechtliche Grenzen der Biowissenschaft und Fortpflanzungsmedizin, 57 Juristenzeitung (JZ) 1065 (2002); see also Christian Starck, Der kleinste Weltbürger - Person, nicht Sache: Der Embryo, 96 Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ), April 25, 2002, at 50; Josef Isensee, Der grundrechtliche Status des Embryos - Menschenwürde und Recht auf Leben als Determinanten der Gentechnik, in Gentechnik und Menschenwürde 37, 52 (Otfried Höffe, eds., 2002); E-W. Böckenförde, Menschenwürde als normatives Prinzip, 58 Juristenzeitung (JZ) 808, 811 (2003) (who, however, does not use the personality argument, though he arrives at the same conclusion); Kersten supra note 9, at 411, 419; Wolfgang Graf Vitzthum, Back to Kant! An Interjection in the Debate on Cloning and Human Dignity, in Human Dignity and Human Cloning 87, 101 (Silja Vöneky & Rüdiger Wolfram eds., 2004).Google Scholar

63 Selected examples are presented by Heun, , supra note 52, at 519.Google Scholar

64 Id.Google Scholar

65 The issue of the “non-accommodated” embryo that has not yet been implanted is discussed in section E.I. of this text. See also Kersten, supra note 9, at 550.Google Scholar

66 Wisser, Josef, Einzartig und komplett. Der Embryo aus biologischer Sicht, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, July 20, 2001, at 44.Google Scholar

67 For a line similar to the one taken here, see also Kersten supra note 9, at 552.Google Scholar

68 Podlech, Adalbert, Article 1 Clause 1, Alternativkommentar zum Grundgesetz margin note 58 (1989); Hofmann, Hasso, Die versprochene Menschenwürde, 118 Archiv des Öffentlichen Rechts (AöR) 353, 376 (1993); Dreier, Horst, Article 1, in 1 Grundgesetz Kommentar margin note 67 (Horst Dreier ed., 2nd ed., 2004); Matthias Herdegen, Article 1 Clause 1, in Grundgesetz Kommentar margin notes 57-60 (2003); Edzard Schmidt-Jorzig, Systematische Bedingungen der Garantie des unbedingten Schutzes der Menschenwürde in Art. 1 GG, 54 Die Öffentliche Verwaltung (DÖV) 925, 928 (2001); Ipsen, supra note 52, at 989, 994; Hans Georg Dederer, Menschenwürde des Embryo in vitro? 127 Archiv des Öffentlichen Rechts (AöR) 1, 18 (2002).Google Scholar

69 See Merkel, Reinhard, Embryonenschutz, Grundgesetz und Ethik, 80 Deutsche Richterzeitung (DRiZ) 184, 190 (2002).Google Scholar

70 BVerfGE 39, 1 (44); BVerfGE 88, 203 (255).Google Scholar

71 BVerfGE 88, 203 (251) (with reference to BVerfGE 39, 1 (37)) (emphasis added).Google Scholar

72 BVerfGE 88, 203 (252).Google Scholar

73 BVerfGE 88, 203 (270).Google Scholar

74 See Starck, Christian, Verfassungsrechtliche Probleme der deutschen Abtreibungsgesetzgebung, in Festschrift für Otfried H. Schiedermeier 377, 382 (2001).Google Scholar

75 BVerfGE 98, 265 (312). For a critical assessment, see Christian Starck, Neues zur Gesetzgebungskompetenz des Bundes kraft Sachzusammenhangs, in Festschrift für Maurer 281, 289 (2001).Google Scholar

76 See Classen, Claus Dieter, Die Forschung mit embryonalen Stammzellen im Spiegel der Grundrechte, 117 Deutsches Verwaltungsblatt (DVBl.) 141, 143 (2002); Kersten, supra note 9, at 570 note 110.Google Scholar

77 Kollek, Regine, Schutz des Embryos, Freiheit der Forscher, 1 Gegenwert, Zeitschrift für den Disput über Wissen 52, 54 (1998); Josef Isensee, Der grundrechtliche Status des Embryos - Menschenwürde und Recht auf Leben als Determinanten der Gentechnik, in Gentechnik und Menschenwürde 37, 52 (Höffe, et al., eds., 2002). For another opinion, see Ipsen, supra note 52, at 991.Google Scholar

78 Kersten, , supra note 9, at 110.Google Scholar

79 Classen, , supra note 76, at 145.Google Scholar

80 BVerfGE 37, 271 (280); BVerfGE 58, 1 (30); BVerfGE 73, 339 (376); BVerfGE 89, 155 (174).Google Scholar

81 Classen, Claus-Dieter, Article 23, in 2 Grundgesetz Kommentar margin note 49, 51 (Hermann von Mangoldt, Friedrich Klein and Christian Starck eds., 5th ed. 2005).Google Scholar

82 Case 804/79, Commission v. United Kingdom, 1981 E.C.R. 1045; Ole Due, Der Grundsatz der Gemeinschaftstreue (1992); Peter Unruh, Die Unionstreue - Anmerkungen zu einem Rechtsgrundsatz der Europäischen Union, 37 Europarecht 41, 45 (2002).Google Scholar

83 Bleckmann, Albert, Art. 5 EWG-Vertrag und die Gemeinschaftstreue, 91 Deutsches Verwaltungsblatt (DVBl.) 483, 487 (1976); Oppermann, supra note 31, at margin note 486.Google Scholar

84 It is not enough, as stated in the inter-institutional memorandum quoted supra at note 12, that research banned under the law of one Member State is only excluded from receiving funding in this particular state.Google Scholar

85 Hummer, Waldemar & Obwexer, Walter, Article 205 EGV, in EUV/EGV Kommentar margin note 45 (Rudolf Streinz ed., 2003).Google Scholar

86 Bulletin of the European Economic Community, year 9, no. 3 (March 1966), p. 9Google Scholar

87 2001 O.J. (C 364) 48. For the legal character of the Luxembourg Compromise, see Hummer & Obwexer, supra note 85, at margin note 42.Google Scholar

88 Hummer, & Obwexer, , supra note 85, at note 45.Google Scholar