The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has upheld a controversial 2016 French law that criminalizes the purchase of sex, imposing fines of up to €1,500 (USD $1630) on those caught buying sexual services. The law, often referred to as the “Nordic model,” aims to reduce prostitution by targeting demand rather than criminalizing sex workers themselves.

The law was challenged on the grounds that it violated the European Convention on Human Rights. However, the ECHR ruled that the law does not infringe on these rights.

The judges acknowledged the significant difficulties and risks faced by sex workers but stated that there is no consensus on whether the criminalization of buying sexual acts directly causes the negative effects reported by claimants.

Despite the ruling, the law is reportedly rarely enforced. Proponents of the law, including various campaigners, argue that it is a critical step toward eliminating prostitution. However, sex workers’ rights organizations and other non-governmental organizations (NGOs) argue that such laws increase harm to sex workers.

Dr. Tlaleng Mofokeng, a South African physician and the current United Nations Special Rapporteur on the right to health, strongly criticized the court’s decision. In an amicus brief filed with the ECHR, Mofokeng stated, “[Criminalization] of sex workers is a form of systemic violence enabled and perpetrated by states, with impunity, and contributes to the high levels of stigma, discrimination, violence, degradation, and negative health outcomes.”

Mofokeng further argued that the decision contradicts international law, emphasizing that the best way to respect sex workers’ rights is through the complete decriminalization of sex work. She stated, “Sex work should not be conflated with trafficking in persons for the purpose of sexual exploitation,” adding that such assumptions deny the autonomy and agency of individuals who sell sex.

Global human rights NGOs, including Amnesty International, also criticized the ruling. Anna Błuś, a women’s rights researcher at Amnesty International, called the decision a “missed opportunity,” explaining, “Criminalizing sex work increases discrimination and stigmatization and jeopardizes the safety of sex workers.” Błuś highlighted that such laws force sex workers to take more risks and prevent them from working together to ensure their safety. She also noted that criminalization creates obstacles for sex workers in accessing housing, healthcare, and other critical services, leading to abuse, violence, harassment, and extortion.

Mofokeng pointed out that the criminalization of sex work presents significant obstacles to the enjoyment of the right to health, particularly for sex workers. In their case before the ECHR, French sex workers and advocacy groups claimed the law would have a devastating impact on their livelihood and drive their work underground.

In collaboration with other UN experts, Mofokeng published a guide indicating that in systems that criminalize their work, sex workers often avoid seeking proper healthcare due to fear of legal consequences, harassment, and stigma. She stressed that sex workers’ health needs include HIV prevention and treatment, reproductive cancer screening, trauma counseling, contraceptives, and safe abortion care.

The ECHR’s decision to uphold the French law criminalizing sex buyers has sparked significant controversy and debate among human rights advocates and sex workers’ rights organizations. While the court acknowledges the risks faced by sex workers, it maintains that the law does not violate human rights.

Critics argue that the decision fails to protect the rights and safety of sex workers, calling for the complete decriminalization of sex work to ensure their health, safety, and dignity. As the legal and social implications of this ruling continue to unfold, the debate over the best approach to regulating sex work remains a contentious issue in Europe and beyond.