He said his marriage had been deteriorating for decades – he said health problems and threats of violence. But when the woman filed for divorce, French courts found her at fault for refusing to have sex with her husband.
The case sparked a debate in France about attitudes about consent and women’s rights, which supporters said highlighted the need for legal reform around non-consensual sex within marriage.
On Thursday, the 69-year-old French woman, known by her initials, HW, won her appeal to Europe’s top human rights court, which unanimously sided with her, saying that sexual Refusal to engage in a relationship cannot be considered a ground of error. In divorce
“The existence of such a marital obligation is contrary to sexual freedom,” the European Court of Human Rights said in its ruling, including the right to bodily autonomy and the government’s responsibility to prevent sexual and domestic violence. Huqq said in his judgment.
“This is a victory for all women who, like me, find themselves faced with unusual and unjust judicial decisions, and for their right to physical integrity and privacy,” the woman said in a statement Thursday. raise the question.”
HW and her husband were married in 1984. After that they had four children. After ending the relationship, she filed for divorce in 2012.
In 2019, a French appeals court in Versailles cited his refusal to have sex as the sole fault for the divorce. When he appealed the decision to France’s highest court, the Cassation of Cassation, his bid was thrown out without explanation.
Under French law, a “divorce divorce” or divorce based on fault may allow the aggrieved spouse to claim damages and compensation, financial or otherwise, from the spouse at fault.
The battle dragged on for more than a decade, as successive French courts upheld the decision. When HW had exhausted all legal avenues in France, he brought his case to the European Court of Human Rights in 2021, arguing that the French court’s decision was an unjustified intrusion into his private life and physical integrity. It was a violation.
The European Court of Human Rights, located in Strasbourg, France, adjudicates human rights violations by the 46 member states of the Council of Europe, which is older than the European Union and its predecessor, the European Economic Community. It is an institution.
The International Court of Justice on Thursday said It “could not identify any reason justifying this intervention by public authorities in the field of sexual relations.” It was emphasized that under French law, the concept of “marital duties” bypassed the issue of consent in sexual relations.
HW’s lawyer Lilia Masson celebrated the legal victory, saying she hoped the ruling would “mark a turning point in the fight for women’s rights in France.”
“This decision marks the end of marital duty and an archetypal view of the family,” he said in a statement.
“It is now imperative that France … take concrete steps to end this culture of rape and promote a true culture of consent and mutual respect,” Mohsin added.
In response to the ECHR’s decision, French Justice Minister Gérald Drumenin told reporters on Thursday, “Obviously, we will go in the direction of history and we will adopt our own law.”
For many, the ruling marked a landmark decision in the case of Jessol Pellicott, whose ex-husband, Dominic Pellicott, accused her of sexually abusing people over a decade and dozens of men. He was convicted for arranging the rape.
After this historic trial, the French Parliament issued A report These suggest that the legal definition of rape should include the concept of non-controversy. It reiterated that consent must be freely given and can be withdrawn at any time.
While some women’s rights advocates welcomed the ECHR’s decision in HW’s case, others said it highlighted the need for urgent legal reform to ensure protection against sexual violence in the marital context. .
Ansel Melfert, president of the Women’s Foundation, praised the work of women’s organizations in advocating for legal reform, but said it was “a long road to freedom for women to use their bodies freely.”
“I welcome the decision of the ECHR against the unfair and uncontroversial decision of the Court of Appeal,” French Equality Minister Aurore Bergy wrote. A post on x.
“No woman belongs to her husband. Women are free. Not for free or to have sex,” he added.
