TRIBUNAL DE GRANDE INSTANCE DE BOBIGNY
Court: Tribunal de Grande Instance de Bobigny (Paris suburbs)
Year: 1972
Defendant: Marie-Claire Chevalier, minor, prosecuted for illegal abortion
Co-defendants: The mother (Micheline Chevalier) and three women who assisted
Counsel: Gisèle Halimi (defence) – Cabinet Choisir
Applicable law: Act of 31 July 1920 (prohibition of abortion and contraception)
I.
Statement of Facts
1.1 Background
In 1971, Marie-Claire Chevalier, a sixteen-year-old French student, was raped by a classmate. As a
direct consequence of this assault, she became pregnant. Faced with an unwanted pregnancy caused
by a criminal act, she decided to terminate it. With the help of her mother, Micheline Chevalier, and
three adult women, she underwent an illegal abortion — an act prohibited under French law at the time.
1.2 Legal Context: The 1920 Act
The Act of 31 July 1920 strictly prohibited any form of abortion and contraception in France, treating
both as criminal offences punishable by imprisonment and fines. The law had been enacted in the
aftermath of World War I to encourage population growth and reflected a deeply conservative social and
political climate.
Key fact for examinations: The defendant was a victim of rape. The prosecution of a rape survivor
for seeking an abortion raised fundamental questions about the justice and proportionality of the
1920 Act.
1.3 Political and Social Climate
By the early 1970s, France was experiencing significant social change following the events of May
1968. The Women's Liberation Movement (Mouvement de Libération des Femmes – MLF) had
emerged as a powerful force advocating for reproductive rights. In 1971, 343 prominent French women
had signed the 'Manifesto of the 343', publicly admitting to having had abortions — a deliberate act of
civil disobedience designed to challenge the 1920 Act.
, II.
Procedure
2.1 Prosecution and Committal
Following the disclosure of the abortion, criminal charges were brought against Marie-Claire Chevalier
and four co-defendants: her mother, who had organised and paid for the procedure, and three women
who had assisted in carrying it out. All five were summoned to appear before the Tribunal Correctionnel
of Bobigny.
2.2 The Public Hearing (October–November 1972)
The trial was held over several hearings in October and November 1972. The case attracted
exceptional media and public attention. Gisèle Halimi, a prominent feminist lawyer and co-founder of the
association Choisir (meaning 'to choose'), accepted to represent the defendants pro bono. She
transformed the courtroom into a political and moral platform.
2.3 Defence Strategy and Witness Testimonies
Halimi's defence strategy was unprecedented: rather than contesting the facts, she challenged the
legitimacy of the law itself. She called as witnesses several eminent personalities, including the Nobel
Prize-winning biologist Jacques Monod and the feminist writer Simone de Beauvoir. Their testimonies
placed the trial in the broader context of women's rights, medical science, and human dignity.
Procedural note: This is a rare example of a criminal trial being deliberately used as a vehicle for
law reform. Halimi's approach — contesting the moral and legal validity of the statute, rather than
the defendant's actions — was a defining moment in French legal history.
2.4 Media and Political Mobilisation
The trial received extensive coverage in the national press and on television. Feminist organisations
demonstrated outside the courthouse. Politicians across the political spectrum were compelled to take
public positions on abortion rights. The trial effectively moved the debate from the margins of society to
the centre of national political life.
III.
Grounds of the Decision
3.1 Recognition of the Dramatic Context
The court acknowledged the exceptional and distressing circumstances surrounding the case. The fact
that the pregnancy had resulted from rape was treated as a significant mitigating factor. The judges
recognised the particular vulnerability of the defendant, a minor, who had already suffered a serious
criminal offence before being prosecuted.
3.2 Contestation of the 1920 Act
The defence successfully argued that the 1920 Act was both unjust and anachronistic. Gisèle Halimi
demonstrated that the law criminalised women for exercising control over their own bodies, and that it
disproportionately affected women from lower socio-economic backgrounds, who could not afford to
Court: Tribunal de Grande Instance de Bobigny (Paris suburbs)
Year: 1972
Defendant: Marie-Claire Chevalier, minor, prosecuted for illegal abortion
Co-defendants: The mother (Micheline Chevalier) and three women who assisted
Counsel: Gisèle Halimi (defence) – Cabinet Choisir
Applicable law: Act of 31 July 1920 (prohibition of abortion and contraception)
I.
Statement of Facts
1.1 Background
In 1971, Marie-Claire Chevalier, a sixteen-year-old French student, was raped by a classmate. As a
direct consequence of this assault, she became pregnant. Faced with an unwanted pregnancy caused
by a criminal act, she decided to terminate it. With the help of her mother, Micheline Chevalier, and
three adult women, she underwent an illegal abortion — an act prohibited under French law at the time.
1.2 Legal Context: The 1920 Act
The Act of 31 July 1920 strictly prohibited any form of abortion and contraception in France, treating
both as criminal offences punishable by imprisonment and fines. The law had been enacted in the
aftermath of World War I to encourage population growth and reflected a deeply conservative social and
political climate.
Key fact for examinations: The defendant was a victim of rape. The prosecution of a rape survivor
for seeking an abortion raised fundamental questions about the justice and proportionality of the
1920 Act.
1.3 Political and Social Climate
By the early 1970s, France was experiencing significant social change following the events of May
1968. The Women's Liberation Movement (Mouvement de Libération des Femmes – MLF) had
emerged as a powerful force advocating for reproductive rights. In 1971, 343 prominent French women
had signed the 'Manifesto of the 343', publicly admitting to having had abortions — a deliberate act of
civil disobedience designed to challenge the 1920 Act.
, II.
Procedure
2.1 Prosecution and Committal
Following the disclosure of the abortion, criminal charges were brought against Marie-Claire Chevalier
and four co-defendants: her mother, who had organised and paid for the procedure, and three women
who had assisted in carrying it out. All five were summoned to appear before the Tribunal Correctionnel
of Bobigny.
2.2 The Public Hearing (October–November 1972)
The trial was held over several hearings in October and November 1972. The case attracted
exceptional media and public attention. Gisèle Halimi, a prominent feminist lawyer and co-founder of the
association Choisir (meaning 'to choose'), accepted to represent the defendants pro bono. She
transformed the courtroom into a political and moral platform.
2.3 Defence Strategy and Witness Testimonies
Halimi's defence strategy was unprecedented: rather than contesting the facts, she challenged the
legitimacy of the law itself. She called as witnesses several eminent personalities, including the Nobel
Prize-winning biologist Jacques Monod and the feminist writer Simone de Beauvoir. Their testimonies
placed the trial in the broader context of women's rights, medical science, and human dignity.
Procedural note: This is a rare example of a criminal trial being deliberately used as a vehicle for
law reform. Halimi's approach — contesting the moral and legal validity of the statute, rather than
the defendant's actions — was a defining moment in French legal history.
2.4 Media and Political Mobilisation
The trial received extensive coverage in the national press and on television. Feminist organisations
demonstrated outside the courthouse. Politicians across the political spectrum were compelled to take
public positions on abortion rights. The trial effectively moved the debate from the margins of society to
the centre of national political life.
III.
Grounds of the Decision
3.1 Recognition of the Dramatic Context
The court acknowledged the exceptional and distressing circumstances surrounding the case. The fact
that the pregnancy had resulted from rape was treated as a significant mitigating factor. The judges
recognised the particular vulnerability of the defendant, a minor, who had already suffered a serious
criminal offence before being prosecuted.
3.2 Contestation of the 1920 Act
The defence successfully argued that the 1920 Act was both unjust and anachronistic. Gisèle Halimi
demonstrated that the law criminalised women for exercising control over their own bodies, and that it
disproportionately affected women from lower socio-economic backgrounds, who could not afford to
