Judgment No. 24369 of 2024: Joinder of Parties and the Minor's Interest in Gestational Surrogacy

The recent judgment No. 24369 by the Court of Cassation, issued on July 3, 2024, has raised important issues regarding active and passive standing in proceedings for the rectification of civil status records, particularly in the context of gestational surrogacy. The Court addressed the issue of joinder of parties and the protection of the minor's interest, establishing fundamental principles for the correct interpretation of current regulations.

The Case and the Decisions of the Lower Courts

In the case at hand, D.D. and C.C., after having a daughter through medically assisted procreation, had the birth certificate registered in Italy. However, following the termination of their relationship, the public prosecutor requested the rectification of the record, contesting C.C.'s parental status in the absence of a biological link with the minor. The Court of Appeal of Bari rejected the request, stating that the minor's interest must prevail, maintaining the status of both parents.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the Tribunal that the minor's paramount interest was only realized by preserving C.C.'s parental status.

Issues of Standing and Joinder of Parties

The appeal to the Court of Cassation highlighted the issue of the applicants' active standing, the minor's grandparents, who sought to intervene in the proceedings. The Court held that the standing to sue must be exclusively attributed to the public prosecutor, emphasizing that the applicants did not have a direct interest in the process. This aspect raised questions about the operation of joinder of parties and the interest to sue in contexts of child protection. The Court reiterated that the rectification action must be initiated by those who have a direct and recognizable interest, thus excluding the possibility of an action by the grandparents.

• Active standing must concern only parties with a direct legal interest.
• The public prosecutor has the duty to protect the minor's interest, acting ex officio.
• Joinder of parties must be clearly defined to ensure the correct procedural dynamics.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 24369 of 2024 offers significant food for thought on the importance of protecting the minor's interest in situations of legal complexity such as gestational surrogacy. The Court's affirmation that the public prosecutor must intervene to ensure the legality and truth of the parent-child relationship highlights the need for careful consideration of family dynamics and the rights of minors. In conclusion, this case represents an important step towards greater clarity and protection of minors' rights in the context of new methods of procreation.