why France was condemned by the ECHR

This is an important step in the jurisprudence relating to “conjugal duty” – a term often invoked in French law although it does not appear in the civil code. In a judgment handed down on Thursday January 23, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) sanctions France for the use of this concept and judges that the fact of refusing to have sexual relations with one's husband does not constitute a “serious or renewed violation of the duties and obligations of marriage”.

The Court thus ruled in favor of the applicant, a 69-year-old woman, who had contacted it on March 5, 2021. Married in 1984, the latter had launched divorce proceedings in 2012, at the end of which a divorce for fault, at her exclusive wrongs, had been pronounced, on the grounds that she had evaded marital duty. By a judgment of November 7, 2019, the Versailles Court of Appeal, emphasizing “the continued refusal by the wife from 2004 to intimate relations with her husband”considered in fact that this constituted “a serious and renewed violation of the duties and obligations of marriage making the continuation of life together intolerable”.

After having exhausted all avenues of appeal in France, the lady turned to European justice, supported by feminist associations such as the Feminist Collective Against Rape. She denounced the lack of recognition of her right to respect for private life, enshrined in Article 8 of the ECHR. Evoking a “archaic vision of marriage”the applicant emphasized that her refusal of intimate relations took place in a context of violence on the part of her husband and was also explained by significant health problems.

“Form of sexual violence”

“The reaffirmation of marital duty and the fact of having pronounced the divorce for fault on the grounds that the applicant had ceased all intimate relations with her husband constitute interferences in her right to respect for private life, in her sexual freedom and in her right to dispose of one’s body”decides the decision, adopted unanimously by the seven judges. The Court therefore recognizes the “certain moral harm” of the applicant.

You have 52.47% of this article left to read. The rest is reserved for subscribers.