The absolute ban on egg freezing without medical reasons is disproportionate and therefore unconstitutional, according to Austria’s Constitutional Court (VfGH). The court ruled that possible social pressure on women is not a sufficient justification for the prohibition and that the practice known as “social egg freezing” does not raise ethical concerns. Since several legal amendments are required, the ban will be lifted on April 1, 2027, the VfGH announced on Tuesday.
The court had held a hearing on the issue in June. Under the current Reproductive Medicine Act, eggs may only be extracted for future medically assisted reproduction if “a physical ailment or its treatment, according to the state of medical science and experience, creates a serious risk that pregnancy can no longer be achieved through sexual intercourse.”
Court Recognizes Fundamental Right
“The desire to have a child—and therefore to use natural or medically assisted methods of reproduction—is part of private life and thus a fundamental right under the European Convention on Human Rights,” the court stated. This right may only be restricted when necessary, for example, to protect health or the rights of others.
In the case of “social egg freezing” for later in-vitro fertilization using the partner’s genetic material, the VfGH found no ethical or moral concerns. Health risks could be reduced “through less restrictive means than an absolute ban,” the court said. During the hearing, the introduction of age limits was discussed as a possible safeguard.
The federal government had argued that women should not be subjected to societal or workplace pressure to postpone having children through “social egg freezing.” However, the court found that potential social pressure was not a sufficient reason for a complete ban. Legislators could introduce accompanying measures—such as regulations on how the method is advertised, as well as information and counseling requirements or age restrictions. The court also noted that “social egg freezing” and medically necessary egg extraction need not be treated identically under the law.
