Spain's constitutional court refuses to hear sex-for-debt case appeal

Spain's top court said the case had insufficient bearing on the constitution for it to hear the appeal
Spain's top court said the case had insufficient bearing on the constitution for it to hear the appeal

Spain’s Constitutional Court has announced that it will not hear an appeal by a woman who reported her former brother-in-law for allegedly forcing her to pleasure him for lending her money.

The woman from Mallorca had found herself in desperate need of money in 2019, when the brother of her former partner paid 15,000 euros (£12,500) into her account. She reportedly said she would pay him back little by little when she could save some income.

But the man, who at 58 was 20 years older than the woman, said that in the meantime she must perform oral sex on him two or three times a week.

The woman admitted to visiting her creditor five times before desisting, at which point she said he began to send her aggressive phone messages threatening her with “revenge” and possibly reporting her for non-payment of a debt.

The woman reported the man, who was prosecuted on several counts of coercion.

But both the local court in Palma de Mallorca and the regional appeal court of the Balearic Islands found that no crime had been committed, ruling that the woman had freely consented to perform the sexual acts concerned.

The decision by the Balearic Islands’ top court was criticised by feminist observers and Spain’s equality minister, Irene Montero, who said the man had forced the woman to prostitute herself for fear of being reported for defaulting on the debt.

“Only yes means yes. Without consent, it is rape. Consent implies the absence of coercion and threats,” Ms Montero said in a tweet in December 2020.

Spain’s parliament is considering a reform of the law on sexual assaults to define all sex without consent as rape.

Spain’s Constitutional Court has said the case “does not have sufficient constitutional relevance” for it to review the case, meaning that the lower court ruling will stand.