Judicial activism, the Biotech Directive and its institutional implications – Is the Court acting as a legislator or a court when defining the ‘human embryo’?

Andrea Beata Faeh

5 Citationer (Scopus)

Abstract

In December 2014 the Court again delivered a judgment in relation to the interpretation of the Biotech Directive (98/44). The decision in the International Stem Cell Corp case can be regarded as a refinement of the judgment in Brüstle v Greenpeace on the issue of the definition of "human embryo". The Court mainly reaffirms its previous judgment-this in itself is regrettable from an institutional perspective-and, further, the Court adjusts the definition in relation to non-fertilised human ova and confirms that there was a misperception of the Brüstle judgment. The article analyses both the Brüstle and the International Stem Cell cases in the light of the Court's judicial competence and sheds some light on the implication of the judgments for the future of human embryonic stem cell research.

OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftEuropean Law Review
Vol/bind40
Udgave nummer4
Sider (fra-til)613-627
Antal sider15
ISSN0307-5400
StatusUdgivet - aug. 2015

Fingeraftryk

Dyk ned i forskningsemnerne om 'Judicial activism, the Biotech Directive and its institutional implications – Is the Court acting as a legislator or a court when defining the ‘human embryo’?'. Sammen danner de et unikt fingeraftryk.

Citationsformater