| Applicant name | M.A. ET AUTRES |
| Applicant type | natural person |
| Number of applicants | 261 |
| Country | France |
| Application no. | 63664/19 64450/19 24387/20 24391/20 24393/20 |
| Date | 25/07/2024 |
| Judges | Lado Chanturia , President , Martin Mits, Stephanie Mourou-Vikström, Maria Elosegui, Katerina Simackova, Stéphane Pisani |
| Institution | Court |
| Type | Judgment |
| Outcome Art. 8 | no violation |
| Reason | necessary (public order and safety) |
| Type of privacy | Bodily privacy |
| Keywords | Prostitution ban |
| Facts of the case | The applicants maintain that the criminalisation of the purchase of sexual acts, worded in general and absolute terms, creates a situation which forces them into clandestinity and isolation, which exposes them to violence and increased health risks, affects their freedom to define the terms of their private life and thus infringes on their personal autonomy and sexual freedom. The Court notes that the Constitutional Council examined the disputed provisions of the Criminal Code in the light of the right to respect for private life, the right to personal autonomy and the right to sexual freedom and that the Council of State dismissed these same complaints, after examining them under Article 8 of the Convention, on the ground that the disputed provisions could not, having regard to the general interest aims which they pursued, be regarded as constituting an excessive interference with the exercise of the applicants’ right to respect for their private life. The Court has already held that the contested measure creates a situation whose effects are directly felt by the applicants. It therefore considers that the criminalisation of the purchase of sexual acts constitutes an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their private life, as well as with their personal autonomy and sexual freedom. |
| Analysis | The Court considers that, in the light of current developments in domestic law’s approach to the issues raised by prostitution, the French authorities struck a fair balance between the competing interests at stake and that the respondent State did not exceed the margin of appreciation available to it. It follows that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention. That being said, it is for the national authorities to keep under constant review the approach they have adopted, in particular where it is based on a general and absolute prohibition on the purchase of sexual acts, so as to be able to qualify it in the light of developments in European societies and international standards in this area and the consequences produced, in a given situation, by the application of that legislation |
| Other Article violation? | – |
| Damage awarded | – |
| Documents | Judgment |