Why Georgia remains the best destination for Spanish citizens interested in a surrogacy program

Surrogacy has suffered severe repression by Spanish authorities since 2019. Many couples were affected by the regulations applied by Pedro Sánchez’s government, aimed fundamentally at making it difficult for the children of Spanish couples born through surrogacy in international destinations such as Ukraine, Georgia and Russia to return. Initially the measures were aimed at dissuading interested parties from destinations considered non-optimal, specifically Ukraine, through the resolution requiring a court order to register minors born through this technique while leaving other destinations such as Canada or the United States unaffected, but since 2025, the prohibition on registering all children born through surrogacy was extended to all cases, including those that had a court ruling.

Let us analyze the exact order of the different measures taken by the Spanish authorities since 2019 and the background:

Regulatory and Jurisprudential Evolution (1988–2025)

Basic legal framework

Surrogacy in Spain has been prohibited since the first law that regulated assisted reproduction techniques. Three norms sustain this prohibition:

• Law 35/1988, of November 22, on assisted reproduction techniques — the first Spanish norm that declared null the surrogacy contract. It was the original legal basis.
• Law 14/2006, of May 26, on assisted human reproduction techniques — the law in force that replaced the 1988 one. Its article 10 establishes: (1) the contract by which gestation is agreed, with or without price, by a woman who renounces maternal filiation in favor of the contracting party or a third party shall be null and void by operation of law; (2) the filiation of children born through surrogate gestation shall be determined by childbirth — that is, the legal mother is the one who gives birth.
• Criminal Code (LO 10/1995), article 221 — criminalizes the handing over of a child to another person with economic compensation, punishable by prison sentences of one to five years and special disqualification.

In summary: the contract is civilly null, the legal mother is the gestational carrier, and handing over the minor in exchange for money is a crime.

2009 — DGRN Resolution of February 18: the California case

Date: February 18, 2009 Body: General Directorate of Registries and Notaries (DGRN) Reference: RJ 2009/1735

Two married Spanish men requested before the Spanish consular Civil Registry in Los Angeles the registration of their two twin children, born through surrogacy in California. The head of the Consular Registry denied the registration. The parents filed an appeal before the DGRN. The DGRN upheld the appeal and ordered the registration, arguing that the California registry certification was sufficient title to access the Spanish Civil Registry in accordance with article 81 of the Civil Registry Regulation. It was the first time that a Spanish administrative body authorized the registration of children born through surrogacy.

Importance: It opened the door for the first time. However, the Public Prosecutor’s Office challenged this resolution before the courts, which led to the judgment of the Court of First Instance No. 15 of Valencia (September 15, 2010), which annulled the registration.

2010 — DGRN Instruction of October 5: the door opens officially

Date: October 5, 2010 (BOE No. 243, of October 7, 2010) Reference: BOE-A-2010-15317 Body: DGRN

Given the controversy generated by the 2009 resolution, the DGRN issued a formal Instruction that established the guidelines for registration in the Civil Registry of those born through surrogacy. Its requirements were:

1. Registration could only be made by presenting a court ruling issued by a competent court of the country of origin that determined the filiation of the newborn.
2. It was required that said court ruling be subject to exequatur (judicial recognition in Spain), unless the foreign procedure was analogous to a Spanish one of voluntary jurisdiction, in which case an incidental review by the Civil Registry officer was sufficient.
3. In said incidental review it had to be verified: the regularity and formal authenticity of the resolution, that the court of origin based its competence on criteria equivalent to Spanish ones, that the procedural rights of the parties were guaranteed, and that there had been no violation of the best interests of the minor.

Practical impact: This Instruction required a court ruling, which benefited those who went to the U.S. (where states such as California issue judicial pre-birth orders), but left in limbo those who went to countries such as Ukraine, Georgia or Russia, where the administrative process generates a birth certificate but not necessarily a court ruling. However, in practice, some consulates were lax in applying this requirement.

2014 — STS 835/2013 of February 6: the Supreme Court says no, but the DGRN maintains its Instruction

Date: February 6, 2014 Body: Supreme Court, Civil Chamber (Full Court) Reference: STS 835/2013 (Rec. 245/2012)

The Supreme Court resolved on appeal the original case of the twins born in California. It confirmed the cancellation of the registry registration ordered by the DGRN in 2009, for three fundamental reasons:

1. The registration of filiation derived from a surrogacy contract violates Spanish international public order, since article 10 of Law 14/2006 declares the contract null.
2. The only recognized parents are the biological father and mother — filiation cannot be determined by a private contract.
3. The best interests of the minor cannot be invoked to validate a practice contrary to the law, since that interest must be protected within the legal framework, not outside it.

Practical paradox: Despite this ruling, the DGRN did not repeal its 2010 Instruction. At the end of 2014 and beginning of 2015, the DGRN itself issued internal instructions to try to unblock pending registrations. In practice, children born through surrogacy abroad continued to be registered if a court ruling was provided, creating a contradiction between the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence and registry practice.

2014 — ECtHR condemns France: indirect impact on Spain

Date: June 26, 2014 Body: European Court of Human Rights (5th Section) Cases: Mennesson v. France (No. 65192/2011) and Labassee v. France (No. 65941/2011)

The ECtHR condemned the French State for preventing the registration of children born through surrogacy abroad. France, with legislation analogous to Spanish legislation (nullity of the contract), had denied registration. The Strasbourg Court ruled that, while States have a margin of appreciation to prohibit surrogacy internally, they cannot deprive already-born minors of their identity or of the determination of their filiation, since this violates article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to respect for private life).

Impact in Spain: The ruling strengthened the position of those who advocated registering the minors, and was one of the arguments used by the DGRN to keep its 2010 Instruction in force despite the STS of February 2014. In 2015, the Spanish Supreme Court itself, when resolving an incident of nullity against its 2014 ruling, acknowledged that a solution should be sought to protect the identity of the minors, urging the Public Prosecutor’s Office to bring actions to determine biological filiation and, where appropriate, adoption.

2019 — Instructions of February 14 and 18: closure of the birth certificate route

Instruction of February 14, 2019 (repealed in 4 days)

Body: DGRN

The DGRN issued a first instruction that opened the door to the registration of children born through surrogacy by means of a simple DNA test proving the biological link, without the need for a court ruling. This would have greatly facilitated registrations from any country.

However, this instruction generated a strong political and social reaction. The Ministry of Justice annulled it just four days later.

Instruction of February 18, 2019 (BOE No. 45, of February 21, 2019)

Reference: BOE-A-2019-2367

The new instruction replaced the one of the 14th and updated the 2010 one. Its practical effects were a significant tightening:

1. It confirmed that registration only proceeded by means of a foreign court ruling determining filiation, maintaining the requirement of the 2010 Instruction.
2. It explicitly closed the possibility of registering by means of a foreign registry certification (birth certificate) or simple declaration with medical certification, for children born after the publication of this instruction (February 21, 2019).
3. It recalled that the alternative for those who did not have a court ruling was to go to the Public Prosecutor’s Office or bring judicial actions for claiming filiation in Spain.

Impact by destination country:

• U.S.: Not affected. In states such as California, the judicial pre-birth order met the requirement.
• Ukraine: Direct blow. The Ukrainian process generates an administrative birth certificate with the names of the intended parents, but not a court ruling. Spanish parents in Ukraine were left without a direct consular registration route.
• Georgia: Same impact as Ukraine. The Georgian process does not go through a court either.
• Russia: Same situation.
• Canada: Depends on the province — some issue court rulings (e.g. Ontario), others do not.

2022 — STS 277/2022 of March 31: the Supreme Court reinforces its doctrine

Date: March 31, 2022 Body: Supreme Court, Civil Chamber (Full Court) Reference: STS 277/2022 (Rec. 907/2021)

In this case, a Spanish citizen had resorted to a commercial surrogacy contract in Mexico (state of Tabasco). Unlike the 2014 case (where recognition of a filiation established abroad was sought), here the chosen route was an action for claiming filiation ex novo by possession of status, directly before the Spanish courts.

The Supreme Court rejected the claim and reiterated its doctrine:

1. The surrogacy contract is contrary to Spanish public order.
2. It objectifies both the gestational woman and the minor, violating fundamental rights recognized in the Constitution and in international conventions.
3. The best interests of the minor cannot be used as a legitimizing shield for a practice that the legal system prohibits.
4. The legal route to determine filiation is the claim of biological paternity by the father who has a genetic link, and adoption by the other intended parent.

Importance: This ruling consolidated the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence and was expressly cited as precedent both in the 2024 ruling and in the 2025 Instruction.

2023 — Organic Law 1/2023: surrogacy as reproductive violence

Date: February 28, 2023 Norm: Organic Law 1/2023, which modifies Organic Law 2/2010, of March 3, on sexual and reproductive health and the voluntary interruption of pregnancy

This reform of the abortion law incorporated significant changes in the legal classification of surrogacy:

1. It recognized surrogacy as a form of reproductive violence against women, including it alongside forced sterilization, forced abortion and gyneco-obstetric violence.
2. It prohibited advertising by intermediary agencies in surrogacy aimed at Spanish citizens.
3. It urged public administrations to develop prevention campaigns against this practice.

Important nuance: Although it reinforced the illegality of the practice and classified it as violence, this law did not establish additional legal obstacles to registering children already born through this route abroad. The registry route (with a court ruling) remained technically open under the 2010 and 2019 Instructions.

2024 — STS 1626/2024 of December 4: the exequatur route is closed

Date: December 4, 2024 Body: Supreme Court, Civil Chamber (Full Court) Reference: STS 1626/2024 (Rec. 7904/2023) — ECLI:ES:TS:2024:5879 Rapporteur: Rafael Sarazá Jimena

This is the definitive turning point. Two Spanish citizens requested the exequatur of a judgment issued by a Court of Bexar County, Texas (U.S.), which recognized them as legal parents of minors born through commercial surrogacy.

The Supreme Court, for the first time, expressly denied the exequatur of a foreign court ruling in a surrogacy case. Its grounds:

1. The recognition of effects of the Texas judgment entails validating the effects of a surrogacy contract, which is contrary to Spanish public order.
2. It reiterates the doctrine of STS 835/2013 and 277/2022: the contract objectifies the gestational carrier and the minor.
3. The protection of the minor must be sought within the Spanish legal framework (claim of biological paternity + adoption), not through the automatic recognition of a foreign judgment that endorses a prohibited practice.
4. The Court rejected that denying the exequatur violated the best interests of the minor or article 8 of the ECHR, noting that Spain has the right to adopt measures to make difficult a practice prohibited in its legal system.

What changed: Until this ruling, the route of exequatur or incidental review of foreign court rulings had worked as a mechanism to register minors, especially those born in the U.S. STS 1626/2024 closed that door for the future.

2025 — DGSJFP Instruction of April 28: total closure

Date: April 28, 2025 (BOE No. 105, of May 1, 2025) Reference: BOE-A-2025-8647 Body: General Directorate of Legal Security and Public Faith (DGSJFP, successor of the DGRN)

This Instruction formalized at the administrative level what STS 1626/2024 had established at the jurisprudential level. Its guidelines:

First: It annuls the Instructions of October 5, 2010 and February 18, 2019.

Second: The following shall not be admitted as title for registration in the Civil Registry (including consular registries) of the birth and filiation of those born through surrogacy:

• A foreign registry certification
• A simple declaration accompanied by medical certification regarding the birth of the minor
• Nor a final judgment of the judicial authorities of the corresponding country

This last point is the radical novelty: not even a foreign court ruling, which was the only thing that worked until then, serves any longer as a title for registration.

Third: Applications pending registration as of the date of publication in the BOE (May 1, 2025) will not be processed.

Fourth: Filiation may only be determined through the ordinary routes of Spanish law: claim of biological paternity (arts. 764 et seq. LEC) and, where appropriate, adoption.

Entry into force: May 1, 2025.

Practical impact by destination country

So why in the end Georgia remains the best destination for Spanish citizens interested in surrogacy?

The cumulative effect of the Spanish regulatory evolution translates into very different situations depending on the country where the surrogacy was carried out:

Country	Type of document issued	After 2019 Instruction	After STS 1626/2024 + 2025 Instruction	Alternative route
U.S. (California, Texas, Nevada, etc.)	Court ruling (pre-birth order or judgment) + US passport (ius soli)	Registration possible (court ruling met the requirement)	Direct registration blocked.	The child travels with a US passport. In Spain: claim of biological paternity + adoption by the other parent
Ukraine	Administrative birth certificate (without court ruling)	Registration blocked since 2019	Still blocked	In practice, Spanish parents manage to obtain a Ukrainian passport for the minor through informal procedures, which allows taking them out of the country. Once in Spain: claim of biological paternity before Spanish courts + adoption. Opaque process without guarantees
Georgia	Administrative birth certificate (without court ruling)	Registration blocked since 2019	Still blocked	The child obtains the Georgian passport after obtaining the Spanish consulate’s refusal to register them.
Greece	Prior court ruling (court authorization before embryo transfer). Since 2014 the residence requirement for foreigners was eliminated, but since May 2025 permanent legal residence in Greece was reinstated	Registration possible (there was a Greek court ruling)	Direct registration was blocked.	Destination practically closed for Spaniards. Law 5197/2025 (art. 46, in force since 05/16/2025) reinstated the requirement of permanent legal residence in Greece for both the intended mother and the gestational carrier, closing the door to non-resident foreigners.
Canada	Varies by province: some issue a court ruling (Ontario), others an administrative certificate	Depending on the province: with a court ruling yes; without it, blocked	Direct registration blocked.	The child is born with Canadian citizenship (ius soli). Can travel with a Canadian passport. In Spain: same route as the U.S.
Russia	No longer available for foreigners	N/A — Russia prohibited surrogacy for foreigners in December 2022. The same law imposed mandatory Russian citizenship for all those born through surrogacy as a state control mechanism. Only married Russian citizens or single Russian women can access it.	N/A	Destination closed by Russian legislation itself

Current situation

As of October 2026, Spain has closed all registry routes for registering minors born through surrogacy abroad. The evolution can be summarized in three phases of progressive closure:

1. Phase 1 (2019): Closure of the birth certificate route without a court ruling — affected Ukraine, Georgia, Russia and countries without a judicial filiation process.
2. Phase 2 (2024): Closure of the exequatur route / recognition of foreign court rulings — affected the U.S. and countries with a judicial process but not immediately.
3. Phase 3 (2025): Administrative formalization of total closure — the Instruction of April 28, 2025 left as the only routes the claim of biological paternity and adoption.

The only practical possibility for a Spanish citizen who resorts to surrogacy abroad is:

• Going to a country with ius soli (U.S., Canada or Georgia (which exceptionally grants Georgian nationality to children born through surrogacy) so that the child obtains their own passport and can travel.
• Once in Spain, the biological father claims paternity through judicial proceedings with DNA evidence.
• The spouse or partner of the biological father processes the adoption of the minor.

In countries without ius soli (Ukraine, Armenia, Albania), the risk that the minor is left in a migratory limbo without documentation to leave the country is real and has generated documented humanitarian crisis situations.

Conclusions:

Surrogacy in Georgia remains a feasible route for Spanish intended parents interested in a surrogacy program in a country that guarantees the minor’s passport after birth and at prices much more affordable than in the United States.

Furthermore, surrogacy in Georgia enjoys full legal coverage at a great distance from other countries in the same price range that operate in a legal vacuum or gray zone.

Note on Georgia: In June 2023, the Georgian government announced its intention to prohibit surrogacy for foreigners as of January 1, 2024. The bill generated alarm among agencies and intended parents, but it was withdrawn before its third parliamentary reading (January 15, 2024) and was never approved. As of the publication date of this article, commercial surrogacy remains fully legal in Georgia for married heterosexual couples or those in a stable cohabitation of at least one year, including foreigners. The legal framework has not undergone modifications since the 2020 restrictions that limited access to heterosexual couples. This episode, far from weakening Georgia’s position, demonstrates that the country evaluated the question and chose to maintain its current regulatory framework.

Main sources

• Law 14/2006, of May 26, on assisted human reproduction techniques (art. 10)
• DGRN Instruction of October 5, 2010 (BOE-A-2010-15317) — repealed
• DGRN Instruction of February 18, 2019 (BOE-A-2019-2367) — repealed
• Organic Law 1/2023, of February 28
• STS 835/2013, of February 6, 2014
• STS 277/2022, of March 31, 2022
• STS 1626/2024, of December 4, 2024 (ECLI:ES:TS:2024:5879)
• DGSJFP Instruction of April 28, 2025 (BOE-A-2025-8647)

 

Document created by Hanna Sukhanova

Master’s in Law from the National Academy of Law of Odessa, Ukraine

Surrogacy Georgia 2026