19. Is there an important current debate in your country on these or related issues? Updating of the national regulation is intended in the next future.
20. Delegations are invited to provide information, in this section, on particular cases encountered in their country, and especially their case-law. In 2015 a case has been concluded by the Hungarian supreme court (Kúria) where paternity was contested after MAP based on the exception if the husband had not consented to the MAP intervention.
The married couple separated shortly after the birth of the child. The couple had agreed about procreating a child with MAP intervention. The separated husband contested his paternity because a genetic DNA test excluded his biological parentship while supported that of the mother. The court has accepted the action of the ex-husband not to be the father based on the fact that he consented to generate a child with MAP but did not consent to the actual intervention; the document of consent did not contain that the sperm might come from a foreign donor. Not the fact that he could not be the biological father but the lack of a legally valid declaration of consent served as the base of the judgement. (Case EBH2015 P.8.)