CE - 467271

CE - 467271
Court:	CE (France)
Jurisdiction:	France
Relevant Law:	Article 6(1)(e) GDPR Article 21(1) GDPR Article 5 Bioethics Law Article L.2143-2 Code de la santé publique
Decided:	31.05.2024
Published:	04.06.2024
Parties:	AC BD
National Case Number/Name:	467271
European Case Law Identifier:	ECLI:FR:CECHR:2024:467271.20240531
Appeal from:
Appeal to:	Unknown
Original Language(s):	French
Original Source:	LegiFrance (in French)
Initial Contributor:	R_e_

A Court confirmed the gamete donors' right to object under Article 21 GDPR to the transfer of their personal data from the organisation where they made their donation to a central donor register.

English Summary

Facts

The Bioethics Law (la loi sur la bioéthique) amended the Public Health Code (Code de la santé publique) to grant individuals who were conceived with the assistance of third party donors the right to access the identity and some non-identifying data of the donor. This amendment also required donors to expressly consent to the communication of their identity and data to the Commission for the Access of Persons born from Medical Assistance to Procreation (CAPADD). Donation was not permitted without this consent. The data included age, general condition, physical characteristics, family and personal situation, country of birth and motivation for the donation. The transitional provisions of the amendment made it possible to obtain the consent of the donor who made their donation before the amendment was enacted.  

The applicants decided to challenge the legality of the amendment before the Supreme Administrative Court of France. The applicants put forward several arguments to cancel the amendment to the Public Health Code, inter alia alleged infringement of principal of legal certainty or conformity of the amendment with French constitution. One of the arguments referred to a violation of Article 21(1) GDPR and Article 6(1)(e) GDPR. The applicants claimed that the former donors, namely donors who were not under the consent requirement of the new law, could not exercise their right in relation to the authority – CAPADD. The CAPADD was entitled to processes the contact data of former donors, transferred from the organisation or establishment where they made their donation. A person conceived by medical assistance may request to access the data of a particular former donor. Then, the CAPADD would contact this former donor to obtain their consent for disclosure of the data.

Holding

The court decided to reject applicants’ request as it was not substantiated enough. The court based its reasoning on the extensive interpretation of the contested provisions. Also it recalled the Constitutional Council’s judgement relevant for the case at hand.

Regarding the alleged violation of the GDPR, the court held that it was unfounded. As long as former donors' data transfers from the organisation or establishment where they made their donation to the CAPADD were based on Article 6(1)(e) GDPR, each donor would enjoy the right to object under Article 21(1) GDPR. Neither, the original law, nor the contested amendment would impede the application of Article 21(1) GDPR to transfer at hand.

The plea that former donors could not object to the transfer of personal data concerning them was therefore rejected.

Comment

Share your comments here!

Further Resources

Share blogs or news articles here!

English Machine Translation of the Decision

The decision below is a machine translation of the French original. Please refer to the French original for more details.

Full Text

FRENCH REPUBLIC
IN THE NAME OF THE FRENCH PEOPLE

Considering the following procedures:

1° Under number 467271, by a request and a reply brief, registered on September 5, 2022 and March 8, 2023 at the litigation secretariat of the Council of State, Ms. A... C... requests the Council to State to cancel for excess of power article 3 of decree no. 2022-1187 of August 25, 2022 relating to access to non-identifying data and the identity of the third party donor taken in application of article 5 of the Law No. 2021-1017 of August 2, 2021 relating to bioethics and modifying the provisions relating to medically assisted procreation, as it creates article R. 2143-7 of the Public Health Code.

2° Under number 467467, by a request, a new brief, a reply brief and three new briefs, registered on September 11 and December 23, 2022 and February 26, March 7, March 18 and August 29, 2023 at the litigation secretariat of the Council of State, Mr. B... D... asks the Council of State to cancel for abuse of power article 2 of decree n°2022-1187 of August 25, 2022 relating to access to non-identifying data and the identity of the third party donor taken in application of article 5 of law no. 2021-1017 of August 2, 2021 relating to bioethics and amending the provisions relating to medically assisted procreation, as 'it modifies articles R. 2141-36 and R. 2141-37 of the public health code, and article 3 of the same decree, insofar as it creates articles R. 2143-1, R. 2143- 2, R. 2143-5, R. 2143-7, R. 2143-9, R. 2143-14, R. 2143-15 and R. 2143-19 of the public health code.

.................................................. ..................................

Considering the other documents in the files;

Seen :
- the Constitution, in particular its article 62;
- the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
- Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of April 27, 2016;
- the civil code;
- the heritage code;
- the public health code;
- Law No. 78-17 of January 6, 1978;
- Law No. 94-653 of July 29, 1994;
- Law No. 2021-1017 of August 2, 2021;
- Decree No. 2023-785 of August 16, 2023;
- decision of the Constitutional Council no. 2023-1052 QPC of June 9, 2023;
- the administrative justice code;

After hearing in public session:

- the report of Mrs Alexandra Bratos, auditor,

- the conclusions of Mr. Laurent Domingo, public rapporteur;

Considering the following:

1. By a decree of August 25, 2022, taken for the application of article 5 of the law of August 2, 2021 relating to bioethics, the Prime Minister defined the terms of the right of access to the origins of children born medically assisted procreation (AMP) with a third-party donor. Mrs. A... C... and Mr. B... D... ask the Council of State, through requests registered under numbers 467271 and 467467, to annul various provisions resulting from this decree.

2. These two applications present similar questions for judgment, it is appropriate to join them to rule by a single decision.

On the applicable legal framework:

3. Article 5 of the law of August 2, 2021 relating to bioethics inserted into title IV of book I of the second part of the public health code, relating to medically assisted procreation, a chapter III relating to access to non-identifying data and the identity of the third party donor. While, under the previous regime, people conceived by medically assisted procreation did not have access to such data, article L. 2143-2 of the public health code now provides that: "Any person conceived by medically assisted procreation with a third party donor may, if they wish, upon reaching the age of majority, access the identity and non-identifying data of the third party donor defined in article L. 2143-3./ Persons who wish to carry out a gamete donation or offer their embryo for reception expressly consent in advance to the communication of these data and their identity, under the conditions provided for in the first paragraph of this article. In the event of refusal, these persons cannot proceed to this. donation or offer this welcome (...) ". Under article L. 2143-3 of the same code, when obtaining consent, the doctor collects, in addition to the identity of people wishing to donate gametes or offer their embryo to reception, non-identifying data covering age, general condition, physical characteristics, family and personal situation, country of birth, motivation for donation. These data are, under Article L. 2143-4 of the same code, kept by the Biomedicine Agency in data processing for which it is responsible. It follows from the provisions of articles L. 2143-5 and L. 2143-6 that, when a person, upon reaching the age of majority, wishes to access non-identifying data relating to the third party donor or their identity, they must contact a commission for access to non-identifying data and the identity of the third party donor placed with the minister responsible for health, responsible for ruling on requests. Article L. 2143-9 of the same code refers to a decree in the Council of State to determine the modalities of application of these legislative provisions.

4. It results from the transitional provisions provided for by article 5 of the law of August 2, 2021 that the obligation for any person wishing to donate gametes or offer an embryo for reception to consent prior to the communication of their identity and its non-identifying data comes into force on September 1, 2022. In addition, under the terms of C of VII of article 5: "As of a date fixed by decree, cannot be used for an attempt to medical assistance for procreation as the gametes and embryos offered for reception for which the donors have consented to the transmission of their non-identifying data and to the communication of their identity in the event of a request from the persons born from their donation. terms of D of VII of the same article: "On the eve of the date fixed by the decree provided for in C of this VII, the conservation of embryos offered for reception and of gametes resulting from donations made before the first day of the thirteenth month following the promulgation of this law. "At the same time, A of VIII of the same article provides that the right of access to origins" applies to persons conceived by medically assisted procreation with a third party donor from the date fixed by the decree provided for in C of VII of this article ". This date was set at March 31, 2025 by the decree of August 16, 2023 setting the date mentioned in C of VII of article 5 of the law of August 2, 2021 relating to the bioethics of exclusive use of gametes and embryos for which the donors have consented to the transmission of their non-identifying data and the communication of their identity.

5. The legislator finally intended to give third party donors who consented to a gamete donation under the previous regime the possibility of lifting anonymity for the benefit of people born from their donation. It thus follows from the provisions of 5° of article L. 2143-6 of the public health code that the commission for access to non-identifying data and to the identity of the third party donor is responsible for "collecting and recording the agreement of third-party donors who were not subject to the provisions of this chapter at the time of their donation to authorize access to their non-identifying data and their identity as well as the transmission of this data to the Biomedicine Agency , which keeps them in accordance with the same article L. 2143-4 ". Furthermore, under the terms of 6° of the same article, the commission is also responsible "for contacting third-party donors who were not subject to the provisions of this chapter at the time of their donation, when it receives requests under Article L. 2143-5, in order to request and collect their consent to the communication of their non-identifying data and their identity as well as to the transmission of this data to the Biomedicine Agency In order to ensure. this mission, the commission may use the registration number of persons in the national directory for the identification of natural persons and consult this directory. The conditions of this use and this consultation are set by a decree of the Council of State taken after advice. of the National Commission for Information Technology and Liberties The commission is also authorized to consult the national inter-scheme directory of health insurance beneficiaries in order to obtain, through the organizations serving health insurance benefits. , the address of the aforementioned third-party donors". D of VII of article 5 of the law of August 2, 2021 provides, moreover, that “Adults conceived by medically assisted procreation with a third party donor from embryos or gametes used until the fixed date by the decree provided for in C of VII of this article may contact, if they wish, the commission mentioned in article L. 2143-6 of the public health code to request access to non-identifying data of the third party donor held by the organizations and establishments mentioned in the third paragraph of article L. 2142-1 of the same code and, where applicable, the identity of this third party donor.

6. The terms of application of these provisions were determined by the decree of August 25, 2022 relating to access to non-identifying data and to the identity of the third party donor taken in application of article 5 of law no. 2021-1017 of August 2, 2021 relating to bioethics and modifying the provisions relating to medically assisted procreation.

On the withdrawal of some of the conclusions of application no. 467467:

7. By two briefs of January 8 and August 7, 2023, Mr. D... indicated that he withdrew his conclusions directed, on the one hand, against article 3 of the decree of August 25, 2022 as it creates article R 2143-2 of the public health code, and, on the other hand, against article 2 of the same decree as it modifies articles R. 2141-36 and R. 2141-37 of the same code. This withdrawal is pure and simple. Nothing prevents this from being taken into account.

On the admissibility of some of the other conclusions of application no. 467467:

8. In addition to the conclusions which he withdrew, as stated in point 7, Mr D... only requested the annulment, before the expiry of the time limit for litigation, of Article 3 of the decree of August 25, 2022 as it inserts article R. 2143-1 into the public health code, the second paragraph of I of article R. 2141-7, the first paragraph of 2° of I of article R. 2143-9 and article R. 2143-14. The conclusions tending to the annulment of article R. 2143-5, of IV of article R. 2143-7, of III of article R. 2143-9, of II of article R. 1243 -15 and article R. 2143-19 of the public health code, in their version resulting from the contested decree, were only presented in briefs recorded on December 23, 2022, March 18, 2023 and August 29, 2023, after the expiry of the time limit for litigation. These conclusions are therefore late and, consequently, inadmissible.

On the legality of the contested provisions:

With regard to the definition of third party donor mentioned in Article R. 2143-1 of the Public Health Code:

9. Under the terms of article L. 2143-1 of the public health code: "For the application of this chapter, the concept of third party donor means the person whose gametes were collected or taken in application of chapter IV of title IV of book II of the first part of this code as well as the couple, the surviving member or the unmarried woman who has consented to one or more of her embryos being welcomed by another couple or a other woman in application of article L. 2141-5 / When the third party donor is a couple, their consent means the express consent of each of its members. Under the terms of article L. 1244-4 of the same code: “The use of gametes from the same donor cannot deliberately lead to the birth of more than ten children.”

10. Under the terms of the first two paragraphs of article R. 2143-1 of the same code: "For the application of this chapter: / 1° When the embryo(s) mentioned in the first paragraph of article L. 2143- 1 were conceived thanks to a sperm donation, an oocyte donation or a sperm donation and an oocyte donation, the concept of third party donor means the person or persons having consented to these gamete donations as well as of the couple, the surviving member or the unmarried woman who has consented to the reception of her embryos in application of article L. 2141-5".

11. Firstly, by specifying that the notion of third party donor covers both gamete donors and the couple, the surviving member or the unmarried woman having consented to the reception of their embryos, the decree of August 25, 2022 does not has only drawn the consequences of the legislative provisions cited in point 5, which do not exclude the status of third party donor being recognized to the donor of gametes in the hypothesis in which this donation made it possible to conceive supernumerary embryos which are themselves susceptible to be the subject of a donation. The argument that the contested decree is tainted by incompetence can therefore only be rejected.

12. Secondly, the contested provisions of article R. 2143-1 have neither the purpose nor the effect of obstructing the application of the rule set by article L. 1244-4 of the code of public health, cited in point 9, according to which the use of gametes from the same donor cannot deliberately lead to the birth of more than ten children. The plea based on lack of knowledge must therefore be rejected. Nor can it be usefully argued that the contested provisions, of which this is not the subject, would be illegal in so far as they do not provide that a gamete donor may object to the embryo thus conceived be offered for donation to a single woman.

13. Thirdly, Mr. D... maintains that the provisions of article R. 2143-1, in that they recognize the status of third party donor to the donor of gametes in the hypothesis in which this donation made it possible to conceive supernumerary embryos themselves capable of being the subject of a donation, made applicable from September 1, 2022, would therefore have disregarded the principle of legal certainty, to the extent that couples with supernumerary embryos conceived thanks to a gamete donation have only had a few days to donate such embryos to third parties, such a donation can no longer be made from September 1, 2022 without the agreement of the gamete donor.

14. However, as stated in point 4, by virtue of the provisions of C of VII of article 5 of the law of August 2, 2021 relating to bioethics and the decree of August 16, 2023 taken for its application , the rule according to which "only gametes and embryos offered for reception for which the donors have consented to the transmission of their non-identifying data and to the communication of their identity in the event of a request from people born from their donation "only applies from March 31, 2025. The means can therefore, in any event, only be rejected.

With regard to the terms of consent to the communication of their non-identifying data and their identity of third-party donors who have consented to a donation under the legal regime prior to the entry into force of the law of August 2, 2021, defined by the article R. 2143-7 of the public health code:

15. Under the terms of I of Article R. 2143-7 of the Public Health Code: "I.- Third party donors not subject to the provisions of Chapter III of Title IV of Book I of the second part of the legislative part of this code at the time of the donation may, at any time, contact the commission for access of persons born from medically assisted procreation to the data of third party donors, in order to consent to the communication of their identity and their non-identifying data mentioned in article L. 2143-3 / They can also express this consent to the commission when it contacts them after having received a request for access to their data. identity or non-identifying data in application of D of VIII of Article 5 of Law No. 2021-1017 of August 2, 2021 relating to bioethics".

16. Firstly, the Constitutional Council, by its decision no. 2023-1052 QPC of June 9, 2023, ruled that the provisions of 6° of article L. 2143-6 of the public health code, in their drafting resulting from the law of August 2, 2021, which allows the access commission for persons born from medically assisted procreation (CAPADD), title given by the regulatory power to the commission established by this article, to contact the former donors in order to obtain their consent to the communication of their identity and their non-identifying data to the person born from their donation, did not infringe the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, however attaching its decision to a reservation that these provisions cannot have the effect, in the event of refusal by the third party donor, of subjecting the latter “to repeated requests emanating from the same person”. Consequently, Mr. D... is not justified in maintaining that the provisions of the second paragraph of I of article R. 2143-7 of the public health code would be illegal on the grounds that the legislative provisions of 6° of the Article L. 2143-6 of the same code would be contrary to the Constitution, even though these provisions do not include an express provision to guarantee that a former donor will not be subject to repeated requests from the same person.

17. Secondly, if the second paragraph of I of Article R. 2143-7 of the Public Health Code recalls the possibility open to CAPADD to contact third-party donors after having received a request for access to their identity or non-identifying data, it only reiterates, on this point, the provisions of 6° of article L. 2143-6. Consequently, the arguments raised by Mr. D... based on the fact that the provisions of the second paragraph of I of Article R. 2143-7 do not respect the moral contract entered into with former donors, should have provided for an exclusion for donors of gametes for remuneration, would disregard the principle of anonymity of donation for former donors who appear to have been deceased for more than 25 years and whose medical files would then have the character of communicable public archives, or would disregard Articles 2 and 9 of the Civil Code relating to the non-retroactivity of the law and respect for private life can, in any event, only be set aside. Likewise, Mr. D... cannot usefully argue that the provisions in question violate medical confidentiality, by allowing doctors from organizations or establishments where gamete donations are made to transmit information covered by this confidentiality to CAPADD, since It appears from the provisions cited in point 5 that the legislator intended to expressly derogate from medical confidentiality by authorizing this transmission to CAPADD for the needs of its missions.

18. Thirdly, Mr D... and Mrs C... maintain that article R. 2143-7 would be illegal in that it does not provide that the consent of the other member of the couple of which the donor was part of gametes at the time of donation is required when the third party donor is contacted by CAPADD in the case provided for by 6° of article L. 2143-6, including when the donation has been made, in accordance with the law then applicable, with the consent of both members of the couple.

19. By providing the possibility for third-party donors who have donated gametes with the consent of the other member of their couple before the entry into force of the law of August 2, 2021, to be contacted, after entry into force in force of these, by the CAPADD, for the purposes of obtaining their consent to the communication of their identity and their non-identifying data to the child born from their donation upon reaching the age of majority, without making this communication subject to the consent of the other member of the couple, the criticized provisions of article R. 2143-7 draw the consequences of the new applicable legislative provisions, since under the terms of article L. 1244-2 of the public health code, in its resulting version of the law of August 2, 2021, the consent of the other member of the gamete donor couple is no longer required when carrying out the donation. They are not subject to retroactivity, the consent of the other member of the couple, when required, only concerns the making of the donation, and is therefore not affected by the new provisions. In any case, this system, which is provided for by law, aims to give an extended scope to the right of access to the origins of children born through medically assisted procreation with a third party donor, including, under the reservations it provides, to children born from gamete donation before the law comes into force. It is proportionate, because it only applies after obtaining the express consent of the third party donor. Consequently, the arguments based on disregard of the stipulations of Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and, in any event, of the provisions of Article L. 1244 -2 of the Public Health Code, the principle of non-retroactivity of administrative acts, Article 1193 of the Civil Code and Article L. 1111-14 of the Public Health Code can only be set aside.

20. Fourthly, under the terms of article 6 of the regulation of April 27, 2016 relating to the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and the free movement of such data (GDPR): " 1. The processing is only lawful if, and to the extent that, at least one of the following conditions is met: (...) / e) the processing is necessary for the performance of a task carried out in the public interest or relating to the exercise of public authority vested in the controller (...)". Under the terms of the first paragraph of Article 21 of the same regulation: "1. The data subject has the right to object at any time, for reasons relating to his or her particular situation, to the processing of personal data concerning him or her. based on Article 6(1)(e) or (f), including profiling based on these provisions. The controller no longer processes the personal data, unless it demonstrates that it exists. legitimate and compelling grounds for the processing which override the interests and rights and freedoms of the data subject, or for the establishment, exercise or defense of legal claims".

21. No provision of the law of August 2, 2021 or the contested decree prevents a former donor from asserting, with the organization or establishment where he made his donation, his right of opposition to the processing of this data. Consequently, the argument based on ignorance of the GDPR, on the grounds that former donors could not object to personal data concerning them being transmitted by this organization or establishment to CAPADD, must be rejected.

22. Fifthly, if article R. 2143-7 does not provide that former donors contacted by CAPADD are informed of the manner in which they were found and does not set a model form to record the donor's refusal , in order to prevent it from being requested several times, if it does not further provide for a minimum response time to CAPADD's request, the absence of such provisions, whatever, where applicable, their usefulness, does not taint the contested decree with illegality.

With regard to the terms of request for access to non-identifying data and the identity of the third party donor defined by article R. 2143-9:

23. Under the terms of article R. 2143-9 of the public health code: "I.- Persons born from medically assisted procreation with a third party donor who, upon reaching the age of majority, wish to access, in application of the provisions of article L. 2143-5, the identity of the third party donor, the non-identifying data mentioned in article L. 2143-3 or these two categories of data, refer the matter to the access commission for persons born of medically assisted procreation to the data of third party donors using a form that it makes available to the public / Requests sent using this form are, under penalty of inadmissibility, accompanied by supporting documents. following: (...) / 2° He proves his filiation with the beneficiaries of medically assisted procreation by producing a full copy of his birth certificate dated less than three months ago (.. .) "

24. The provisions cited in the preceding point are not intended and cannot have the effect of preventing a child born through medically assisted procreation with a third party donor from being able to prove his or her parentage with his or her parents. intention, beneficiaries of medically assisted procreation with a third party donor, by any means left to the discretion of the instructing service when it is not able to produce a full copy of a birth certificate establishing the link of parentage of less than three months. Mr. D... is therefore not justified in maintaining that these provisions would be illegal or likely to obstruct the right of access to the identity and non-identifying data of the third party donor, particularly in the event of disavowal of paternity.

With regard to the terms of conservation of data from the “gamete and embryo donation register” defined in article R. 2143-14:

25. Under the terms of article L. 2143-4 of the public health code: "The data relating to third-party donors mentioned in article L. 2143-3, the data relating to their donations and to people born in following these donations as well as the identity of the recipient individuals or couples are kept by the Biomedicine Agency in data processing for which it is responsible in application of 13° of article L. 1418-1, in conditions strictly guaranteeing their security, their integrity and their confidentiality, for a limited and adequate period taking into account the necessities resulting from the use for which these data are intended, fixed by a decree in the Council of State taken after advice of the National Commission of information technology and freedoms, which cannot be older than one hundred and twenty years / These data also allow the Biomedicine Agency to ensure compliance with the provisions relating to gamete donations provided for in article L. 1244. -4".

26. Under the terms of article R. 2143-14 of the public health code: "The data mentioned in article R. 2143-11 are kept by the Biomedicine Agency for a period of one hundred and twenty years from the date of their registration in the processing / By way of derogation from the first paragraph, in the event that a donation does not give rise to any live birth, the data mentioned in 1° of article R. 2143-11 are deleted. ". Under the terms of article R. 2141-35 of the public health code: "The rules of good practice applicable to ovarian stimulation, including when it is implemented independently of a medical assistance technique for procreation, are set by order of the Minister responsible for health, taken after advice from the Biomedicine Agency and the National Agency for the Safety of Medicines and Health Products. Under the terms of point V.4 of the annex to the decree of June 30, 2017 amending the amended decree of April 11, 2008 relating to the rules of good clinical and biological practices for medically assisted procreation, in its then applicable wording : “oocyte donation is limited to two complete cycles (ovarian stimulation and oocyte retrieval for donation) during a woman’s life.”

27. Firstly, the retention period of data appearing in the processing of personal data for which the Biomedicine Agency is the data controller, entitled "registry of gamete and embryo donations", set at 120 years, allows people born through medically assisted procreation with a third party donor to exercise their right of access to their origins at any time, from their majority, taking into account their life expectancy. Setting the starting point for the deadline when recording data in processing is more favorable for people born from a donation before the entry into force of the law of August 2, 2021, in the event that the third party donor has consented, since this entry into force, to have his identity and identifying data communicated. If Mr. D... maintains that the period of 120 years could be, in certain cases, insufficient, this ceiling results from the law itself. Furthermore, by allowing the personal data of third-party donors who have not given rise to any live birth to be removed from processing, the regulatory power has ensured reconciliation between, on the one hand, the right to respect for the private life of the third party donor and, on the other hand, the right to know the origins of the child born from medically assisted procreation with a third party donor.

28. Secondly, the fact that the data relating to all third-party donors, as defined in Article R. 2143-1, are kept in the register, thus allowing the person born following a gift of having information on the different people who took part in the process of engenderment, including where applicable those with whom they have no biological link, cannot be considered as disregarding the stipulations of article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

29. Thirdly, the rule according to which data relating to third-party donors are deleted from the register if the donation does not give rise to any live birth does not in itself have the effect of circumventing the limitation on the number of donations of oocytes which women can carry out during their life, which in any case results from a decree, as stated in point 26.

30. Fourthly, the fact that Article R. 2143-14 does not provide for an exemption from the obligation to retain the data of former donors whose medical files have disappeared does not affect, in any event , this one of illegality.

31. It follows from what has been said in the preceding points that the argument based on the fact that the regulatory authority disregarded the applicable legislative provisions by providing for an excessive retention period for the data appearing in the "register of gamete and blood donations" embryos" and by not respecting the principle of data minimization can only be dismissed.

With regard to the other pleas directed against the contested decree:

32. The other grounds of the requests are not accompanied by sufficient details to assess their merits and can, consequently, only be dismissed.

33. It follows from the above that the remainder of the conclusions of Mr D...'s application and Ms C...'s application must be rejected, without there being any need to rule on the objection of inadmissibility by the Minister with regard to the latter.

DECIDED :
--------------

Article 1: Mr. D...'s withdrawal of his conclusions directed against article 2 of the contested decree is hereby acknowledged insofar as it modifies articles R. 2141-36 and R. 2141-37 of the public health code and article 3 of the decree as it creates article R. 2143-2 of the public health code.
Article 2: The remainder of the conclusions of Mr. D...'s request and Ms. C...'s request are rejected.
Article 3: This decision will be notified to Mr. A... C..., to Mr. B... D..., to the Prime Minister, to the Minister of Labor, Health and Solidarity and to the Keeper of the Seals, Minister of Justice.
A copy will be sent to the National Commission for Information Technology and Liberties.

Deliberated at the end of the meeting of May 17, 2024 at which sat: Mr. Jacques-Henri Stahl, deputy president of the litigation section, presiding; Mr. Bertrand Dacosta, Ms. Anne Egerszegi, presidents of chambers; Mr. Olivier Yeznikian, Mr. Nicolas Polge, Mr. Vincent Daumas, Ms. Rozen Noguellou, State Councilors; Mr. Jérôme Goldenberg, State Councilor in extraordinary service and Ms. Alexandra Bratos, auditor-rapporteur.

Returned on May 31, 2024.

President :
Signed: Mr. Jacques-Henri Stahl

The rapporteur:
Signed: Ms. Alexandra Bratos

The Secretary :
Signed: Ms. Claudine Ramalahanoharana

ECLI:FR:CECHR:2024:467271.20240531