A couple who had been together for approximately three decades divorced, with the woman citing her husband's work as a strain on their marriage. In 2019, a French court ruled that the woman was solely responsible for the divorce after she refused to engage in sexual relations with her husband.
On Thursday, the European Court of Human Rights condemned the French court's ruling, stating that it violated the woman's right to private life and autonomy, which encompasses her sexual life. This decision was viewed as a significant milestone by women's rights activists concerned about France's marital laws.
The Versailles Court of Appeals had determined that the woman, referred to as H.W. in court documents, was at fault for the divorce due to her cessation of "intimate relations" with her husband. The court characterized her refusal as a "serious and repeated violation" of her marital obligations.
However, the European Court of Human Rights asserted that governments have a duty to combat domestic and sexual violence, ruling that "the very existence of such a marital obligation is contrary both to sexual freedom and to the right to control one’s body." The court emphasized that consent to marriage does not imply consent to future sexual relations.
This ruling was a symbolic victory for H.W., who maintained that she should not have been deemed at fault for the divorce. Women's rights groups hailed the decision as a crucial step in addressing sexual violence and other forms of abuse against women in relationships.
H.W. expressed hope that the ruling would signify a turning point in the fight for women's rights in France, stating that the victory was for all women facing unjust judicial decisions that undermine their bodily integrity and privacy rights.
The couple, H.W. and J.C., married in 1984 and had four children. H.W. initiated divorce proceedings in 2012, citing her husband's career focus as detrimental to their family life, and claimed he had been "irritable, violent and hurtful." Her husband contended that she was at fault for breaching marital duties by refusing sexual intimacy and accused her of slander.
H.W. testified that her refusal was due to health issues, including a serious accident and a slipped disk, but the French court ruled in favor of her husband. The French government defended its position at the European court, arguing that the determination of marital duty breaches was a domestic matter and noted that French law penalizes sexual assault between spouses.
France's justice minister indicated a willingness to adapt the law in response to the ruling, stating he would encourage lawmakers to discuss the issue. Both parties have three months to refer the case to the European court's Grand Chamber for a final judgment.
Discussions regarding mutual consent, rape culture, and sexual violence have gained prominence in France, particularly following a case involving multiple convictions for sexual violations against Gisèle Pelicot, whose ex-husband admitted to drugging and raping her for nearly a decade.
Another lawyer for H.W. remarked that the ruling should prevent French courts from interpreting the law in ways that compel women to engage in sexual relations with their partners, describing it as a significant advancement for women's rights over their own bodies, including within marriage.
The Women’s Foundation, a French women’s rights organization, stated that the ruling confronted France with its responsibilities and urged the government to reevaluate its judicial practices, asserting that the concept of "marital duty" constitutes a form of control and sexual violence. The group emphasized that "marriage cannot and must never be equated with sexual servitude."