v. France that a French woman was not at fault for her divorce due to not engaging in sexual relations with her husband during their marriage.
The ruling overturned a French court decision that deemed her failure to fulfil "marital duties" (devoir conjugal) as grounds for fault.
[7] It further said that the concept of "marital duties" as interpreted by French courts was incompatible with modern understandings of consent, bodily autonomy and sexual freedom.
[3][8] Lilia Mhissen, H.W's lawyer, said following the ruling: "I hope this decision will mark a turning point in the fight for women's rights in France.
[9] The ruling came during a period of heightened debate in France about sexual consent, especially following high-profile cases like that of Gisèle Pelicot, where her husband and others were was convicted of drugging and raping her.
They celebrated the ruling as a victory for women's rights, pushing for legislative changes to ensure that marriage does not require "sexual servitude".