-
Row over porn access as Free adds VPN to French mobile contracts
Virtual private networks may allow users to bypass age verification laws
-
Ryanair new boarding pass requirements: French flights impacted
Airline will no longer accept physical boarding passes on most flights from November 3
-
French unions issue ‘ultimatum’: new strikes expected
Separate action has already been called by pharmacists, air traffic controllers and teachers in coming weeks
Catholics beaten by infidelity site
Catholic families have lost a court bid to censor extramarital dating site Gleeden – with a court judgment saying infidelity is not illegal.
The site, which uses advertising suggesting that “unlike anti-depressants a lover costs the social security nothing”, said the ruling against the Confédération Nationale des Associations Familiales Catholiques was a victory for the law, liberty of expression, secularism and against bigotry.
The federation had taken the website to court accusing it of violating article 212 du Code Civil by encouraging married people to have affairs.
It said the site was engaging in "illegal and anti-social" trade by promoting cheating when the code said married couples “owe each other mutual respect, fidelity, heland assistance”.
In Paris, the Tribunal de Grande Instance saw life and the law in less clear-cut terms and said the obligation to faithfulness was far from absolute and allowed exceptions.
Judges said “the breach of this obligation is not necessarily regarded as a fault, or cause of divorce, for example because the spouses have mutually agreed to ignore it or because the infidelity of a spouse may be excused by the behaviour of their partner”.
Lawyer Me Caroline Mécary, for Gleeden and owners Blackdivine, said: “Everyone is free in their choices. Infidelity has not been a crime since 1975. We should not use justice as an instrument to advance our own ideas.”
The court ordered the Catholic families group to pay Gleeden €2,000 in legal costs – but the federation’s lawyer said they would look to appeal against the “highly objectionable” ruling.