The couple had been together for about 30 years before divorce. She blamed his job for sacrificing their marriage. But in 2019, the French court decided that after she refused to have sex with him, she would blame only the division.
The European Top Human Lights Court reported on Thursday that the French court’s decision had violated the rights of women, including her sexual life and women’s rights. The decision was regarded as a milestone by a woman’s right activist who had long raised concerns about the French marital law.
The 2019 decision by the Versailles Court said that a woman, who was specified only as HW in court documents, was due to a divorce after stopping her “intimacy” with her husband. According to the court, being close to her husband has been a serious and repeated violation of her couple for many years.
However, the European Human Rights Court states that the government is obliged to fight home and sexual violence, and on Thursday, “exactly the existence of such engagement is contrary to both the right to control the body and the body. I am ruled.
“The court cannot accept the consent of marriage, as suggested by the government, to mean the consent of future sexual relationships.”
It was a symbolic victory for women. Women argued that they should not be found in divorce mistakes. Women’s rights groups were called basic steps to address other forms of abuse against women in sexual violence and relationships.
“I hope this decision marks the turning point of the battle over women’s rights in France,” HW stated in a statement through lawyer Delfine Zobi. “This victory is like me, for all women who face an unreasonable and unjust judging decision that questions their physical honesty and privacy rights.”
HW and JC said that their husband was identified in documents and lived together outside of Paris, married in 1984, and had four children together. The woman started divorce procedures in 2012, claimed that it focused on her husband’s career, influenced her family life, and claimed that he was “frustrated, violent, and hurt.” did.
Her husband claimed to be responsible for breaking the couple’s duty by refusing sexual intimacy in the French court, and filmed him in her accusation.
Women testified that they had refused sex due to health problems, such as serious accidents and slipping disks. The French court has become advantageous for him.
The French government has defended the European Court, argued that the problem of the couple’s obligations was a matter of domestic court, and that the French law had punished sexual assault between spouse. Diego Coras, a representative staff representing the French government in court, refused to comment, but mentioned a simple answer from Gerald Darmanine, a French minister.
“Obviously, we will go in the direction of history and adapt the law,” said Dermanin. I told the reporter。 He said he would encourage the members to discuss the problem.
The two parties have three months to introduce a lawsuit to the Omuro Chamber of Chamber of Court, a European court. When one person is issued, the government’s representative committee will supervise its execution. There is no execution mechanism in the European court, but the ruling may encourage the government to review the law.
The conversation on mutual consent, rape culture, and sexual violence has been swollen in France for the last few months due to the miserable incident that 51 men have been convicted of sexually violated Gisè Lepelicot. Mrs. Pelicotto’s ex -husband, Dominik Pelicot, acknowledged her to drag her and raped for almost 10 years, and invited dozens of strangers to him.
Lilia Missen, a representative of HW, stated that the ruling should stop the French court from interpreting the law in a way that would have sex with a partner. She called it “a major development for women’s rights that control their bodies, including their marriage.”
The French women’s rights group, a women’s foundation, said that this ruling brought French to “face the responsibility.” It called for the government to consider the judicial practice, and the feminist group warned that the concept of “marriage obligations” was a form of control and sexual violence.
“Marriage cannot be equated with sexual slaves, and we can never cooperate,” said the group.
