That’s interesting, I thought there already were judgments in this direction.

For more details, french law has an article that says spouses mutually compel to live in partnership. (don’t know how to translate it best, “les époux s’obligent mutuellement à une communauté de vie”). This is a very unclear sentence, which has been considered by judges to imply that it requires spouses to live under the same roof and to have sex. I think i remember hearing of a ruling stating that in the case of a lesbian lady and an asexual man that got together to have a social facade and live their sexual lives separately, they still were “living in partnership” and that the absence of sex could not cancel their union, but maybe it was only stated once.

That was one part that disgusted me a lot when learning about french law, glad it’s changing for the better, hope it will change faster.

There is a pyramidal conception of rules in the france legal system, something like local regulation < regional regulation < decree < law < international law < constitution. So judgements in courts created by international laws are technically stronger than national judgments.

Also, the decisions of judges have no imperative power, but they are used by judges to solve future cases, and have a de facto big impact on the interpretation of laws. It’s called jurisprudence : to say it quickly, when a judge does not know how to handle an unclear law, they look at what other judges said before.