Information Note on the Court’s case-law 250
April 2021
M. A. and Others v. France (communicated case) - 63664/19, 64450/19, 24387/20 et al.
Article 8
Article 8-1
Respect for private life
Right to autonomy and sexual freedom of persons offering prostitution-related services, faced with the criminalisation of the purchase of sexual services: communicated
Article 2
Positive obligations
Article 2-1
Life
Increased risk and lack of assistance for persons offering prostitution-related services and obliged to work illegally as a result of criminalisation of the purchase of sexual services: communicated
Article 3
Degrading treatment
Inhuman treatment
Positive obligations
Increased risk and lack of assistance for persons offering prostitution-related services and obliged to work illegally as a result of criminalisation of the purchase of sexual services: communicated
Article 34
Victim
Victim status of prostitutes complaining about the “criminalisation of clients”: communicated
The applicants are more than 250 persons, of various nationalities, who state that they provide prostitution-related services, lawfully and on a regular basis. They complain about Law no. 2016-444 of 13 April 2016, which made any purchase of sexual acts, even between consenting adults, an offence under the Criminal Code.
In 2018 the sex workers’ trade union, various humanitarian associations and certain of the applicants lodged an action with the Conseil d’État against one of the implementing decrees of the above Law, arguing that it was unconstitutional and contrary to Article 8 of the Convention.
In response to a request for a preliminary ruling on constitutionality (QPC), the Constitutional Court found: (i) that the vast majority of persons providing prostitution services were victims of the offences of benefiting from prostitution and of trafficking, which were fuelled by the existence of a “demand” for paid-for sexual relations; (ii) that by enacting the impugned criminalisation in order to reduce this demand, the legislature had opted for an approach that did not appear to be clearly inappropriate, having regard to the aim of the public policy pursued; (ii) that in so doing, the legislature had reconciled, on the one hand, the aims of preserving public order (a constitutional principle), preventing crime and protecting human dignity, and, on the other, personal freedom, in a manner that was not manifestly unbalanced.
With regard to Article 8 of the Convention, the Conseil d’État further considered that, notwithstanding the fact that they included sexual acts described as being entered into freely in private by consenting adults, the contested measures did not entail an excessive interference with the right to respect for private life.
The applicants consider the measures to be a radical encroachment on their right to personal autonomy and sexual freedom. They also argue that the criminalisation in issue obliges sex workers to operate in a secretive and isolated manner, which, in their view, increases their vulnerability in relation to their clients, placing them at greater risk of robbery, assault, stigmatisation and infection, and limiting their access to prevention, care and reinsertion facilities.
Communicated under Article 8 and the positive obligations under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, with questions concerning the applicants’ victim status.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy