Debate surrounding changes to the IVF law show no signs of abating, with a seasoned lawyer and former minister seeking to join a constitutional application to annul the legal amendments.
Lawyer Joseph Brincat has filed a constitutional application in his own name seeking to join proceedings instituted earlier this week by lawyer Tonio Azzopardi claiming that changes to the Embryo Protection Act breach various fundamental rights as envisaged under the Constitution.
In the application filed on Friday, Dr Brincat asked to be admitted as respondent, arguing that just as lawyer Tonio Azzopardi had filed his case to “defend certain principles” likewise he, too, had a right “to defend the validity of the same law in that same case.”
If the law were to be declared in violation of the Constitution or the European Convention on Human Rights, declaring it null would also constitute a breach of the right to family life under the Convention in respect of those couples who wish to undergo IVF procedures to have children, Dr Brincat argued.
If they were to be deprived of this right the State would be failing in its obligation under the Convention, the lawyer continued.
Furthermore, as the law stood before the recent amendments, the IVF procedure was better practiced in other EU countries which meant that “vast sums of money” had to be spent. Denying this procedure under our law would be tantamount to a violation of article 14 of the Convention due to discrimination on the basis of financial status.
The applicant further cited article 116 of the Constitution which made it obligatory for a party claiming a breach of fundamental human rights to prove “a direct and personal interest rather than a mere hypothetical interest” or a popular action by a group of persons who are not even victims of said law.
Moreover, ECHR judgments had also established that the wishes of parents were protected under Article 8 of the Convention which sets out the right to private and family life, claimed the lawyer.
In order to invoke the Convention, a party must prove to have “a personal interest, in the sense that the measure affects him factually and not in a philosophical sense.”
For these reasons, Dr Brincat requested the First Hall, Civil Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction, to be allowed to join the suit as respondent.