CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 4 septembre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sE207830C { margin-top:54pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s13C79B1A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .sE77B86B8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .sEB972D3E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .s55E5497F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:10pt } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sA43C3626 { width:28.35pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sD0A217A5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3936C9DD { width:11.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s2A91C753 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sB343B0AA { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s66E9FC38 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s3BF1A56 { margin-top:3pt; margin-left:53.85pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sD362EB { width:14.52pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s96FD6997 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sBB64854C { width:8.45pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sDBF374D0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5BDECA8 { width:5pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s6B38CF35 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s54B12A03 { width:6.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7C9EDFAD { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s55F67FD3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCD82236A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3BF0B6C7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sE8F2C496 { width:5.11pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s71220C2D { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s8EB5F569 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .sFABD3260 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s16F6432D { width:7.9pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFF8BF293 { width:8.05pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3CAF9CA4 { width:8.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sF0C78780 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s5165BC52 { margin-left:17pt } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s31FAC864 { margin-left:17.05pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; list-style-position:inside } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s264C04A0 { margin-left:17.05pt; text-indent:-17.05pt } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sC617E28F { width:20.21pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s8CBDE59 { width:122.76pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s1E019DFF { width:46.56pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sA49AD2E4 { width:177.11pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .fixListIndent { list-style-position: inside }   FIFTH SECTION CASE OF E.A. AND EUROPEAN ASSOCIATION FOR COMBATING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AT WORK v. FRANCE (Application no. 30556/22)     JUDGMENT   Art 3 and Art 8 • Positive obligations • Respondent State’s obligation to introduce provisions criminalising and penalising non-consensual sexual acts and to apply those provisions effectively • Omissions in legal framework applicable at material time • Shortcomings in implementation due to: exclusion from investigation of acts of sexual violence complained of by applicant, fragmented nature of investigations, excessive length of proceedings, and conditions of assessment by trial courts of consent issue.   Prepared by the Registry, not binding on the Court   STRASBOURG 4 September 2025     This judgment has become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of E.A. and European Association for Combating Violence Against Women at Work v. France, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Kateřina Šimáčková , President ,   María Elósegui,   Mattias Guyomar,   Georgios A. Serghides,   Gilberto Felici,   Andreas Zünd,   Diana Sârcu , judges , and Victor Soloveytchik, Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   30556/22) against the French Republic lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by the applicants (“the applicant(s)”), on 16 June 2022; the decision to give notice to the French Government (“the Government”) of the complaints regarding violations of Articles   3 and 8 of the Convention, and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible; the decision not to disclose the name of the first applicant; the observations of the respondent Government and those in reply from the applicants; the written comments received from the Commission nationale consultative des droits de l’homme (CNCDH) and seven non-governmental organisations (NGOs), to which the Section President had given leave to intervene as third parties; Having deliberated in private on 1 July 2025, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The application concerns the respondent State’s compliance with its positive obligations, under the substantive and procedural limbs of Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, to adopt a legal framework for the punishment of non-consensual sexual acts and to implement it through effective investigation and prosecution, in conditions that would avoid secondary victimisation. THE FACTS 2.     Ms E.A. is a French national who was born in 1985 and lives in Metz. The Association européenne contre les violences faites aux femmes au travail (European Association for Combating Violence against Women at Work – “the AVFT”) is a non-governmental organisation established in 1985 and based in Paris. Its registered purpose includes defending victims of gender-based and sexual violence committed in the workplace. The applicants were represented by M. Vignola, L. Questiaux and C. Pettiti, of the Paris Bar. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr D. Colas, Director of Legal Affairs, Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs. I.         ESTABLISHMENT of the facts 4 .     At the material time Dr K.B., who was born in 1967, was the director of the pharmacy department at Briey Hospital ( centre hospitalier ). He had been working there since 2002 and was vice-chair of the hospital’s medical board. 5 .     E.A. had joined his department in March 2010 as a pharmacy assistant, working as a health manager. She had been recruited on a temporary contract, with a view to management training and worked under the direct supervision of a senior health officer Ms A.K. At the time she was cohabiting with her partner D.N. 6 .     On 12 June 2013 E.A. was placed on sick-leave. The measure was prolonged for some time. She was hospitalised in the psychiatry department from 18 June to 5 July 2013 and from 15 July 2013 to 12 October 2013. 7 .     In the course of exchanges concerning her sick-leave, E.A. revealed to A.K. that she had been in an intimate relationship with K.B. and that K.B. was harassing her, both professionally and privately. At an interview on 15 July 2013 from 8 a.m., she explained the sado-masochistic nature of their relationship and brought to A.K.’s attention extracts from their correspondence. In a report of 18 July 2023, A.K. described its content as follows: “[E.A.] then opened several documents (emails and text messages written by [K.B]) which she had kept for several months. As I looked over them very quickly, I realised that they were sometimes complimentary, and sometimes degrading or humiliating towards her, but that they also concerned more personal, degrading, inhumane acts ... I have assessed the significance and seriousness of the situation and have encouraged her to make an appointment with [G.S.] ...” 8 .     At 1.30 p.m. on the same day E.A. was seen by Ms G.S., a senior health officer in charge of treatment coordination. E.A. confirmed that she had been the victim of harassment at work. She described scenes of humiliation and bullying in front of her colleagues and complained about the emails sent to her by K.B. She was also concerned about the influence that he might have on her future career, as she was about to undergo a qualification-based promotion procedure to obtain managerial status. 9.     On 22 July 2013 E.A. was examined by a doctor, who declared her unfit to return to work. 10 .     She was then interviewed by the Director of Human Resources (DHR) and by V.R., another senior health officer in the care department. The record of the interview reads as follows: “[E.A.] explained that, little by little, Dr [K.B.] had managed to make her dependent on him and stated that the first deviant conduct had dated back to the end of 2010. A relationship of seduction and flattery had developed between them. ... [E.A.], although obviously very distressed by the situation, went on to say: ‘Then he wanted to control my life by alternately seducing and rejecting me. He would take me and then throw me away. He wanted me to tell him that [I was] his crap. To please him, I was saying that stuff.’ ‘We had sex in the workplace, in the basement.’ During the training year at IFCS [1] , there were contacts, messages. ‘When I got back from IFCS, I accepted everything. Perverse practices and threats, I couldn’t see the harm. I didn’t know what was normal anymore. Then he asked me for forgiveness, pretended to be the victim. I took pity on him, he was also unhappy. It was even more hellish when I told him to stop.’ ‘I was forcibly sodomised twice, he spanked me on the chain [sic] .’ [E.A.] acknowledged that the best solution would have been to run away but, bound by a 30-month contract of employment with Briey Hospital, she had given up. She was also afraid that she would miss out on her promotion if she disclosed the situation. She explained: ‘I was afraid of other people’s judgment, already I wasn’t very sure of myself at first, I wasn’t very sure of the quality of my work. I’m still happy with the projects I’ve done, but he couldn’t stand me working with another pharmacist.’ While acknowledging that the relationship had not been that of a couple, as there had been no life or activities in common, she stated that Dr [K.B.] wished to control her life. He had thus contacted her boyfriend, with whom she had been for more than six years and with whom she had marriage plans, to tell him things about her, thus getting him to leave her. She said: ‘I was completely alone and isolated . When I went home, I stayed in the dark, I couldn’t eat. Then I ended up contacting SOS Amitiés and the person said to me: “you are being psychologically abused”. ... ’ ... To the questions [about how she] saw her future, [E.A.] replied: ‘I don’t know what I want anymore ... I feel weak for having fallen into this, especially as a manager, what credibility can I still have?’ ...” 11 .     During that interview, E.A. produced documents and copies of emails and text messages illustrating her relationship with K.B. These included a document headed “master/bitch contract, dated 14/03/2013”, which reads as follows [2] : “ Part 1: On the part of the master, he shall -           choose his bitch’s clothes and underwear -           choose her makeup -           make (according to the master’s desire) his bitch eat from a bowl at the master’s feet -           ask his bitch to pee with the door open, and she will let her master hear her pee at least once a day if he is not present -           ask his bitch to send a photo of her with her panties down every day if he is not there, or each time she changes clothes (+ to send the programme for the day) -           not let his bitch use dildos alone -           defend, protect and support his bitch -           not break / insult / show malice towards his bitch -           not belittle his bitch -           not abandon his bitch and must manage her life -           learn to communicate without getting angry -           not change behaviour after ejaculation / intercourse -           let his bitch touch herself -           give his bitch something to eat -           give massages to his bitch -           spank his bitch in case of non-compliance with the contract. Part 2: On the part of the bitch, she shall -           regularly suck her master -           wear the leash, with the inner and outer collar -           keep him informed of outings and wear the chastity belt in case of going out alone (except with family) -           look after / massage / touch her master’s dick (including in the car) -           agree to be fucked by others in the presence of the master , including when pregnant -           make sure the pharmacy shutter is opened every morning -           take the pill until the master decides she should stop -           always have soft and well-styled hair (except weekends and holidays) + choice of haircut by master -           never cut her body hair -           handle her master’s accounts -           behave with respect, obedience and devotion towards her master. Common Part -           ensure fidelity on both sides (do not flirt, do not try to make the other jealous, do not frequent prostitutes) -           have a cohesive relationship -           be honest and transparent -           accept each other’s activities subject to prior authorisation -           do not mix work with private life in any circumstances ” That document was co-signed by E.A. and K.B., the latter having affixed a professional stamp to it, showing his status as head of department. 12.     E.A. was encouraged to file a criminal complaint and was informed of the possibility of receiving legal assistance for occupational protection. 13.     On 24 July 2013 K.B. was interviewed by the director of Briey Hospital, the deputy director in charge of medical affairs and the head of human resources. E.A.’s complaints were brought to his attention. K.B. admitted having had sexual intercourse with E.A. at the hospital, but asserted that it had been consensual. 14 .     On 30 July 2013 the deputy director of Briey Hospital reported the facts to the Briey public prosecutor, specifically stating that E.A. had complained of a situation of “control” and “forced sexual relations”. 15 .     On 1 August 2013 a series of interviews were carried out with members of the pharmacy department as part of an administrative investigation. Several of them stated that they had observed the intimate relationship between K.B. and E.A., but that K.B. had changed his behaviour towards E.A. in recent months. They stated that K.B. had on several occasions made things difficult for her in a professional context or at meetings, publicly criticising her work and denigrating her professional capacities in meetings (“incompetent, too young, incapable”). He had also tried to distance her from one of the female pharmacists on duty (Dr A.E.). Several of the professionals interviewed said that K.B. could be aggressive and enter into bouts of extreme rage. In addition, according to several members of the team E.A. had lost weight, had become tremulous and was less committed to her work than usual. 16.     The documents submitted by E.A., the various reports and accounts referred to above (see paragraphs   7, 10 and 11 above) and the administrative enquiry report (see paragraph   15 above) were forwarded to the public prosecutor’s office. 17.     Furthermore, K.B. was suspended from duty on 5 August 2013. He challenged that measure before the Nancy Administrative Court, which dismissed his application in a judgment of 25 June 2015. K.B. was subsequently dismissed from the profession of hospital practitioners. The Administrative Court dismissed the applications for the setting-aside and review of that sanction in judgments of 29 September 2017 and 15 June 2023. II.       Investigations by domestic authorities A.    The preliminary police investigation 1.      Appointment of investigators and framework of investigations 18 .     On 5 August 2013 the Briey public prosecutor, represented by a member of his office, sent a transmittal order to the head of the Longwy public-security district, requesting that he “receive [the victim’s] criminal complaint and carry out an investigation”, without giving any further details as to its purpose or the legal classification of the offences concerned. 19 .     In a letter to the public prosecutor’s office of 13 August 2013, E.A.’s lawyer lodged a criminal complaint against K.B. on charges of aggravated rape, aggravated sexual assault, intentional acts of violence, psychological harassment, sexual harassment and undue influence. 20 .     The criminal complaint stated that E.A. had been placed in a relationship of control and dependence vis-à-vis K.B. She argued that K.B. had used his charisma and professional status to seduce her and set up a game of sexual domination. According to the complaint, this relationship had drifted towards “a relationship of quasi-sectarian total domination, based on humiliation and denigration”. E.A. had gradually become isolated from her relatives and colleagues, in front of whom she had been denigrated. 21 .     A series of specific facts were identified. In her complaint E.A. related, first, offences of a serious criminal nature ( crimes ), namely acts of anal penetration carried out under coercion. She also reported various other criminal offences ( délits ), namely aggravated sexual assault, psychological harassment, sexual harassment, intentional acts of violence and undue influence. She stated, inter alia , that K.B. had forced her to use the email address “ [email protected] ”, that he had urinated on her in order to “mark his territory”, that he had kept her on a leash and that he had wanted to make her eat from a dog’s bowl. She also claimed that she had been subjected to repeated acts of violence by K.B. during sexual intercourse (slapping, beating, choking, spanking, whipping, pulling of hair ...). Some of these violent sexual practices had continued after she had asked K.B. to stop. 22 .     The complaint stated that these events had had a significant impact on her state of health, as E.A. had been hospitalised for severe depression, combined with significant weight loss. Witness statements and medical certificates were appended. 23 . On 20 August 2013 the complaint was forwarded to the department concerned with a view to being joined to the ongoing investigation. No specific instructions were given as to how the investigations should be conducted. 2.      Conduct of preliminary police investigation 24.     The case was assigned to an investigator on 27 August 2013. He carried out on his own all the investigative measures that have been brought to the Court’s attention. (a)    Statements by E.A. 25 .     E.A. was interviewed on 5 and 13 September 2013. She had been in an extramarital relationship with K.B. from 2011 onwards and their sexual intercourse had initially been consensual. K.B. had quickly become ambivalent towards her, alternating between phases of romantic conquest, where he flattered or pitied her, and phases of rejection, where he denigrated her at work or threatened to harm her professionally. He had been increasingly brutal and controlling in their sex life. He had also exercised more control over her personal life during her training at the IFCS, imposing her clothing choices, making her send photographs of herself every day with her panties down and phone him whenever she went to the toilet. He had also knocked her over by pushing her back violently during an argument. 26 .     E.A. stated that K.B. had gradually imposed certain sado-masochistic sexual practices on her, which she had accepted for fear of abandonment and professional reprisals. She further explained that she feared that she would have to reimburse her training costs in the event of an early termination of her contract with Briey Hospital, which K.B. had been aware of. She confirmed all the above matters in her criminal complaint (see paragraphs   19-21 above). According to her, the rape had taken place in September 2012 and K.B. had continued to penetrate her even though she had told him to stop, as the intercourse had become painful. She further stated that there had been many instances of intercourse which she had “not managed to refuse”. On three occasions K.B. had beaten her violently, with his bare hand or a whip, for not “complying with [his] instructions” and he had continued even though she was begging him to stop. 27 .     Lastly, E.A. explained that K.B.’s behaviour had worsened at the end of 2012. He had caused her to break up with D.N. and had been increasingly aggressive and insulting towards her in the workplace. She had tried several times to put an end to their relationship, but had not succeeded. After a final break-up email sent in April 2013, K.B. had stopped inviting her to certain meetings, given her contradictory instructions and made numerous humiliating remarks about her in front of her colleagues. She had finally confided in her sister, who, in view of the deterioration in her health, had referred her to a doctor who had triggered her admission to hospital. 28 .     E.A. pointed out that the events had had a major impact, both psychologically and physically (bruising, inflammation, bleeding, pain in walking, etc.). She reiterated her criminal complaint of aggravated rape, aggravated sexual assault, sexual harassment by a person taking advantage of a position of authority, psychological harassment, undue influence and aggravated intentional acts of violence. At the end of her first interview, she gave the investigator copies of emails and SMS messages exchanged with K.B. and various documents on a USB stick. 29 .     With regard to the accusation of harassment, E.A. stated that K.B. had assigned her tasks that did not correspond to her duties, that he had driven her to make mistakes by giving her imprecise instructions or setting unrealistic deadlines, that he had isolated her from her colleagues and that he had publicly belittled her professional skills on numerous occasions. She also stated that K.B. had made sexualised gestures or comments in the workplace on several occasions. (b)    Witness statements (i)       Interviews with colleagues of E.A. and K.B. 30 .     Fourteen colleagues of E.A. (the entire pharmacy department and a few other members of hospital staff) gave evidence in the autumn of 2013. They all stated that they had observed that her health had deteriorated from the time she had returned from training at the end of 2012: she had lost her appetite, appeared tired, thin and worried, and cried regularly. The staff of her department confirmed almost unanimously that K.B.’s behaviour towards E.A. had been mercurial and that he had intensified his harsh criticism of her in the workplace. 31.     Three of K.B.’s colleagues or former colleagues (M.P., A.D. and A.P.) stated that they had also been harassed by him and described similar acts (ambivalence, denigration, exclusion). Two of them stated that they had changed department for that reason. The third stated that this behaviour had caused her to have suicidal thoughts. 32.     E.A. had discussed the nature of her relationship with K.B. with several of her colleagues. To three of them (M.P., J.R. and A.A.), she had revealed that she had been subjected to forced sexual intercourse and to acts of sexual violence. (ii)     Interviews with friends and relatives of E.A. and K.B. 33.     In addition, statements were taken from several individuals in the entourage of E.A. and K.B. 34 .     First, E.A.’s friends and relatives confirmed that her state of health had sharply deteriorated at the end of 2012. They explained that she had been staring at the screens and had received constant messages from K.B., to which she had felt obliged to reply immediately. In March 2013 E.A. had initially told her sister and mother that she was being harassed by her head of department. They had advised her to see her general practitioner. In July 2013 she had told them about the violence of her sexual intercourse with K.B. and the sexual acts into which she had been coerced. Having discovered a copy of the “master/bitch contract” in her daughter’s affairs, E.A.’s father had also informed her line manager of the situation by a telephone call of 17 July 2013 and then by a letter to the hospital management. In addition, D.N., E.A.’s former partner, stated that he had noted bruises on her thighs at the relevant time and mentioned that she had complained of haemorrhoid-related pain at that time. 35 .     Secondly, N.W., one of K.B.’s former companions, stated that K.B. had forced her into a similar kind of relationship. She explained that their sex life had been violent and that K.B. had established a particularly intrusive and degrading relationship of domination between them, which had placed her in a situation of total dependence. She commented on K.B.’s emotional ambivalence and stated that he had harassed her by telephone. Like E.A., her relationship with K.B. had led to her being hospitalised in a psychiatric department. (c)    Psychiatric examination of complainant 36.     A psychiatric examination of the complainant was ordered. The expert was instructed to analyse the circumstances in which the events had come to light in order to determine whether certain factors could have influenced E.A.’s statements, to describe any impact of the events on her, indicating whether it was suggestive of sexual trauma, to assess her degree of vulnerability, to determine whether she was temporarily unfit for work and to indicate whether therapeutic follow-up was appropriate. 37 .     In a report of 18 December 2013, the expert psychiatrist noted that E.A.’s remarks had been accompanied by negative emotions that were usually observed among victims of sexual violence and that they appeared sincere and authentic. He described her as “a young woman who is broken in terms of her psychological equilibrium”, explaining that her responses and mental suffering were typical of “hostage syndrome”. He emphasised that “her assailant could not have been unaware or ignorant of her emotional and sentimental fragility ...”. In a supplementary report of 17 February 2014 the expert specified that E.A. was temporarily unfit for work for at least one year, given the intensity of her psychopathological condition and the severity of her post-traumatic stress disorder. (d)    K.B.’s police custody 38 .     On 26 February 2014 K.B. arrived at Longwy police station after being summoned by post. In accordance with the instructions of the public prosecutor’s office, he was taken into police custody solely on charges of aggravated sexual harassment and intentional acts of violence resulting in total unfitness for work for more than eight days. 39.     He was questioned three times on 26 and 27 February 2014. He claimed to be the victim of slander and stated that E.A. had harassed him to the point of causing him to fall into depression. He admitted that he had had a domineering relationship with E.A., explaining that it was the result of a joint fantasy. He stated that the “master/bitch contract” had been drawn up on a proposal by E.A. In his view, their sexual relations had always been consensual and had been free of any coercion. He denied the rape and harassment accusations, adding that he had never mixed private and professional life. 40.     On 27 February 2014 a confrontation was held between K.B. and E.A., who confirmed the entirety of her complaints. She stated, inter alia , as follows: “I told him that I would always refuse to be beaten. He replied, ‘That’s only what you’re saying now’. He uses the word ‘spanking’ to minimise his actions. In reality, he was whipping me very hard with his hand and I was begging him to stop, because I was in pain. I was screaming. He had understood ... but acted as if he couldn’t hear me. When he says that he never forced sex on me, that’s not true. As for sodomy, I told him clearly that I did not want it. He told me to stop being a cry-baby and that when I said ‘no’, it meant ‘yes’, that what I said didn’t matter. I gave in so as not to annoy him. When he saw that I was in pain, he should have stopped.” K.B. stated as follows: “Violent spanking is not true. As for sodomy, it’s just about consistent ...” (e)    Use of messages and emails between E.A. and K.B. 41 .     The information spontaneously submitted by E.A. in her criminal complaint (see paragraph   28 above) was examined from 6 September 2013 onwards. It was printed out and placed under seal. Furthermore, the digital media produced by K.B. when he was summoned were analysed on 27 February 2014. The usable files (extracts from correspondence and photographs) were printed and placed under seal. 42 .     The department responsible for the investigation did not carry out any further enquiries into telephone data during the preliminary police investigation. No searches were carried out in the hospital or at the homes of those concerned by the investigation. The telephones and computers used by E.A. and K.B. were neither seized nor examined. B.    The judicial investigation 43.     At the end of his police custody K.B. was brought before the Briey public prosecutor. 44 .     On 28 February 2014 the public prosecutor opened a judicial investigation on charges of intentional acts of violence resulting in total unfitness for work for more than eight days and sexual harassment aggravated by abuse of authority. 1.      Conduct of judicial investigation (a)    The placing of K.B. under formal investigation with judicial supervision order 45.     K.B. was placed under formal investigation for the above-mentioned offences and a measure of judicial supervision was imposed. In particular, the investigating judge prohibited him from visiting Briey Hospital and from making contact with E.A. (b)    Enquiries under judicial warrants 46.     In a judicial warrant of 4 March 2014, the investigating judge instructed the police of the Longwy public security district to continue the enquiries. He requested, in particular, that K.B.’s work computer be placed under seal, that the telephone data of communications between E.A. and K.B. be analysed and that several other witnesses be interviewed. 47 .     The execution of the judicial warrants was entrusted to the same lead investigator. He obtained the hard disk from K.B.’s work computer and its content was subjected to forensic analysis. It turned out that his data had been erased. However, the forensic examination established that several versions of the “master/bitch contract” had been opened on that machine and that it had been used to contact the user of the e-mail address “ [email protected] ” (see paragraph   21 above) as well as to access pornographic websites. 48 .     Furthermore, the telephone data from the line used by E.A. were ordered for the period after 10 March 2013 and were transmitted to the investigating judge without being analysed. 49.     Lastly, the requested interviews were conducted between 12 March and 15 May 2014. Several former staff members of the hospital who had left the region were subsequently interviewed under separate warrants. (c)    Investigations concerning E.A. 50 .     E.A. joined the proceedings as a civil party. The investigating judge questioned her on 15 April 2014. She confirmed to him her previous statements. 51 .     A psychological assessment of E.A. was ordered. In a report of 30 June 2014 the expert noted that in 2013 she had been suffering from sleep disorders, anxiety, mood swings and phobic behaviour. Her relations with K.B., as described by her in the interview, corresponded to “a controlling relationship of a patent sado-masochistic nature” which had “gradually ... left her unbalanced” and plunged her into “significant mental distress”. The expert considered the applicant’s account to be coherent, as her emotional reactions lent a certain consistency to it. She recommended that the psychotherapeutic monitoring be continued. (d)    Investigations concerning K.B. 52.     On 6 August 2014 K.B. was questioned. He maintained his previous statements. 53.     He underwent a psychiatric examination. The measure was initially entrusted to the expert who had examined E.A. However, despite the investigating judge’s reminders, he did not carry out his task. The expert finally appointed submitted his report on 12 November 2015. He took the view that the facts, if proven, were unrelated to any particular psychiatric abnormality, but to ill-controlled sexual and aggressive impulses. 54.     On 22 January 2016 the closing of the judicial investigation was notified to the parties. 2.      Criminal proceedings against K.B. 55 .     In a decision of 25 November 2016 the investigating judge committed K.B. for trial in the Criminal Court on charges of intentional acts of violence resulting in total unfitness for work for more than eight days and aggravated sexual harassment on the following grounds: “( 1) With regard to intentional acts of violence ... ... It will be observed, however, that ... [E.A.] gave a precise and consistent account of the various forms of violence, physical and psychological, which she had suffered at the hands of [K.B.] from October 2010 until the end of their relationship in June 2013. With regard to physical violence, she mentioned blows inflicted on her by the accused during their sexual activity (spanking, use of a whip on her buttocks ...), but also to sexual intercourse which was in itself violent and had caused her physical pain and injuries (bruising, vaginal haemorrhage, haemorrhoids ...). The fact that some of these injuries were actually sustained was corroborated ... by her former partner [D.N.], who said that he had noticed bruises on her thighs, and also mentioned urinary tract infections and haemorrhoids, whereas she had not suffered from those conditions before. ... Again with regard to the physical violence complained of by [E.A.] and more specifically the injuries sustained following violent sexual intercourse with the accused, she specifically mentioned an act of sodomy in September 2012 when he had carried on even though she had asked him to stop. In that regard, the medical certificate drawn up by [Dr B.] following a consultation on 24 September 2012 mentions haemorrhoidal thrombosis ... which is compatible, in view of the period ... in question, with the statements of the civil party. ... ... while [K.B.] argues that violent acts committed in the context of sexual activity constitute non-reprehensible games when taking place between consenting adults, it should be observed that, as the European Court of Human Rights held in a judgment [ K.A. and A.D. v. Belgium (nos. 42758/98 and 45558/99, 17 February 2005)], indeed cited by the defence, non-reprehensibility presupposes that the victim has not withdrawn her consent in the course of such practices. In the present case, however, [E.A.] has precisely expressed her disagreement with them, referring to the ensuing pain and injuries. In addition to the physical violence, [E.A.] also complained of psychological violence, describing the accused’s aggressive and humiliating behaviour towards her, as expressed orally, by emails or by SMS. The screenshots produced in the case file, but also the testimony of her entourage and colleagues, some of whom (such as her mother and sister) had seen some of the messages addressed to her by [K.B.], corroborate the allegation of such behaviour. It appears in this connection that the accused alternated between aggressive rejection and seduction of [E.B.], thus ensuring complete control over her. [E.A.’s] entourage and colleagues have also testified about the consequences of that conduct for her personally, namely a gradual deterioration in her state of health, both physically and psychologically, in particular from September 2012 onwards. The experts in psychology and psychiatry ... confirmed in this connection that the violence she suffered had had a significant impact on her ... ... Furthermore, the forensic psychiatric report drawn up on 4 December 2013 reveals that the distress expressed by [E.A.] is commonly observed in the mental profile of victims, particularly victims of sexual violence. In conclusion, these elements show that acts of violence, both physical and psychological, were indeed committed by [K.B.] against [E.A.] ... Committal for trial ... must therefore be ordered under this head. (2) Concerning the sexual harassment ... ... [It] has been shown that the accused has exerted extremely significant psychological control over [E.A.], to a degree which makes it possible to understand her behaviour and the fact that she chose to go back to him, even though she was a victim, such behaviour not being in any way exceptional among victims of violence. As to the argument that harassment would be impossible to establish on account of the victim’s consent to the sexual acts committed, it will be observed that although [E.A.] may have consented to certain acts, in particular at the beginning of her relationship with [K.B.], she subsequently became subservient to his demands (sexual fondling, oral sex, including in the workplace), even the most degrading ones (such as the fact that he urinated on her or demanded that she record herself urinating) to avoid being bothered at work or denigrated by him in front of her colleagues. The signing of the ‘master/bitch contract’, to which she added certain clauses for the sake of preservation, is also consistent with that logic and cannot amount to acceptance on her part of the acts referred to therein. It should also be pointed out that several employees of the pharmacy department reported that [K.B.] alternated between aggressive and supportive phases in his attitude towards her, the aggressive phases being characterised in particular by denigration [of E.A.] during team meetings, where the accused would highlight her incompetence and question her suitability for a managerial post. The accused’s criticism of her had intensified at the beginning of 2013, with a corresponding deterioration in [E.A.’s] physical and psychological state ... ..., it appears that, by submitting to the acts demanded of her, [E.A.] was seeking to avoid any adverse effect on her professional career; she believed [K.B.] to be capable of such influence in the light of his position. ...” 56 .     In the absence of any challenge, the committal decision became final. III.     The judgment AGAINST K.B. A.    Disputes concerning the jurisdiction of the Criminal Court and the first-instance judgment 57 .     The association AVFT and E.A.’s entourage joined the proceedings in the Criminal Court as civil parties. 58.     E.A. argued that the Criminal Court lacked jurisdiction, claiming that some of the acts prosecuted in fact amounted to rape and were therefore more serious offences ( crimes ) falling within the remit of the Assize Court. 59 .     In an interlocutory judgment of 23 May 2017, the Val de Briey [3] Criminal Court observed that on the date of the committal decision E.A. had joined the proceedings as a civil party and had been assisted by a lawyer. Accordingly, it dismissed the objection of lack of jurisdiction as being out of time, pursuant to Article 469 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 60.     E.A., the AVFT and the public prosecutor’s office appealed against that judgment. 61.     In a judgment of 19 April 2018, the Nancy Court of Appeal declared those appeals inadmissible, as no application to have them declared admissible with immediate effect had been lodged by the appellants. 62 .     In written submissions of 23 July 2018, E.A. asked the President of the Criminal Court, before the hearings resumed, to analyse the data on the flash drive that she had provided when she had lodged her complaint (see paragraph   28 above). 63.     On 23 August 2018 the President of the Criminal Court sent E.A. a copy of the sealed evidence in question. 64 .     Before the Criminal Court, E.A. and the AVFT requested that the charges against K.B. (see paragraph   55 above) be reclassified as aggravated sexual assault (see paragraph   77 below). E.A. further argued that Articles 222-11 and 222-14-3 of the Criminal Code provided for punishment of intentional acts of violence of any kind, even psychological, without distinguishing between cases depending on whether the victim consented (see paragraph   78 below). The civil parties requested that K.B. be found guilty of the offences with which he had been charged and sought payment of various sums in compensation for the damage they had sustained. 65 .     In a judgment of 25 September 2018 the Val de Briey Criminal Court dismissed their request for a reclassification of the offences on the following grounds: “It appears from the exchanges of e-mails and text messages in the file that [K.B. and E.A.] were expressing their love for each other; they were sending nude photos of themselves to each other; they were also talking about types of sexual intercourse and fantasies. It is also apparent that they both tried to put an end to the relationship, but failed to do so. [E.A.] has claimed that a non-consensual act of sodomy was performed on her in September 2012 ... [K.B.] has denied that she asked him to stop. Furthermore, [K.B.] and [E.A.] acknowledge that further acts of sodomy were performed subsequently, as is corroborated by an exchange of text messages. Consequently, with regard to the act of sodomy of September 2012, the appearance of haemorrhoidal thrombosis and [E.A.’s] statements are neither sufficient to establish that [E.A.] did not consent to the act nor sufficient to make out the charge of violence under Article 222-22 of the Criminal Code. Similarly, the fact that [E.A.]’s partner found bruises on her body and that she complained of violent sexual intercourse are not sufficient to establish the existence of physical coercion. ... While the victim’s submission may be taken into account in order to establish psychological coercion, it is not sufficient. ... The existence of [K.B.’s] professional authority over [E.A.] ... is beyond doubt: [E.A.] has completed a training course as a health manager which should be validated at Briey Hospital. It appears from the various interviews that [K.B.] knew all the members of the panel and that he had already threatened [E.A.] with denying her the promotion, thus indicating that he could influence the panel’s decision. Lastly, it should be noted that the ‘master/bitch contract’ drawn up on 14 March 2013 bears a stamp ‘Dr [K.B.] – Chief Pharmacist’. Furthermore, [K.B.] himself acknowledged that he had ‘threatened to do something professionally’; that he was going to ‘talk to the man