L’interesse superiore del minore alla prova di resistenza delle tecniche di PMA. Note a margine della sentenza della Corte costituzionale n. 68 del 2025

di Stella Romano

SOMMARIO: 1. Introduzione. – 2. Le premesse giurisprudenziali della questione di costituzionalità prospettata nella sentenza n. 68 del 2025. – 3. Il quadro di riferimento fornito dalla giurisprudenza della Corte Edu. – 4. La questione sottoposta al vaglio della Consulta. – 5. I confini della questione di legittimità costituzionale. – 6. La decisione della Corte. Il nodo centrale della questione di costituzionalità. – 7. Conclusioni.

The contribution,  also through a critical reconstruction of previous constitutional jurisprudence, analyses judgment no. 68 of 2025, which affirmed the constitutional illegitimacy of Article 8 of Law no. 40 of 2004 in the part in which it does not provide that a child born in Italy to a woman who has resorted to medically assisted procreation (MAP) techniques abroad, in compliance with the rules in force there, to medically assisted procreation (MAP) techniques, are also recognised as children of the woman who, likewise, has given her prior consent to the use of such techniques and to the related assumption of parental responsibility. In particular, we will analyse how the guiding principle of the best interests of the child takes on a central role in ensuring that the rights that the child has towards his or her parents apply not only to the biological mother but also to the intended mother, thus establishing a new form of parental responsibility that also extends to same-sex couples.