The couple had been together for three decades before they divorced. She blamed his work for taking days in their marriage. But in 2019, the French court ruled that she was exclusively guilty of the cleft after refusing to have sex with him.

The highest European Court of Human Rights on Thursday condemned the verdict, saying that the French court’s decision violated a woman’s right to private life and autonomy, which included her sex life. The decision was observed as a turning point for women’s rights activists who have long caused concern about French marital laws.

The 2019 Versailles appellant’s decision said that a woman, identified only as HW in court documents, was to blame in divorce after stopping her “intimate relationships” with her husband. Her rejection for years to be intimate with her husband, the court said, was “a serious and repeated violation of her marital duties.

But the European Court of Human Rights, saying that the governments had an obligation to fight domestic and sexual violence, on Thursday ruled that “the existence of such marital obligation is contrary to sexual freedom and the right to control one’s body.”

He added: “The court cannot accept, as the government suggests that consent to marriage involves consent to future sexual relations.”

It was a symbolic victory for a woman, who claimed that she should not have been guilty in the divorce. Women’s rights groups called a decision basic step to resolve sexual violence and other forms of abuse against women in relationships.

“I hope this decision will mark a turning point in the fight for women’s rights in France,” HW said in a statement of her lawyer, Delphine Zuughebi. “This victory is intended for all women who, like me, face aberrant and unjust judicial decisions that question their physical integrity and the right to privacy.”

HW and JC, as her husband was identified in the documents, who lived together outside Paris, got married in 1984 and had four children together, the verdict said. The woman initiated a divorce procedure in 2012, claiming that her husband’s focus on his career influenced their family life and that he was “irritable, violent and harmful.”

Her husband claimed in a French court to blame her for breaking her marital duties, rejecting sexual intimacy and also slandered him with her accusations.

The woman testified that she refused to have sex for health problems, including a serious accident and sliding disk. The French court found in his favor.

The French government, defending themselves in the European Court, claimed that the question was whether a marital duty was a matter of domestic courts and emphasized that the French law was punished by the sexual abuse of spouses. Diega Colas spokeswoman, an official who represented the French government in court, refused to comment, but on Thursday made a short response from Géralda Darmanin, a French justice minister.

“Obviously we will go in the direction of history and we will adjust our law,” Mr. Darmanin told reporters. He said he would encourage legislators to talk about the matter.

Both parties have three months to instructions to the Great Council of the European Court, which can consider the case for the final verdict. Once issued, the Committee of State Representatives of the Member States of the Court of Affairs supervise their implementation. The European Court has no mechanism for implementation, but its judgments may state the countries to re -examine their laws.

Talks about mutual consent, rape culture and sexual violence have swallowed in recent months, guided by a case of torture in which there were 51 men convicted of sexual violation of Gisèle Pelicot. Mrs. Pelicot’s ex -husband, Dominique Pelicot, admitted that he had drugged her and raped her for almost a decade and called on dozens of foreigners to join him.

Lilia Mhissen, another lawyer who represents HW, said the verdict should prevent French courts from interpreting the law in a way that would make women have sex with their partners. She called “the great development for a woman’s right to control her own bodies, including marriage.”

The Women’s Foundation, the French Women’s Rights Group, said the judgment of France made “face to face with its responsibilities.” He urged the Government to inspect his judicial practices, adding that feminist groups warned that the term “marital duty” was a form of control and sexual violence.

“Marriage cannot and should never be equated with a sex service,” the group said.