When a judicial distancing measure is pronounced, it applies to both parties, including the victim herself. The issue of non-compliance with this measure by the victim – and not by the perpetrator of the violence – remains, however, little addressed by the courts and specialized media. What actually happens when the protected person resumes contact or invites the perpetrator to return home?
Criminal sanctions for violating a distancing measure: perpetrator versus victim
The law of June 13, 2024, has tightened the criminal framework applicable to non-compliance with protection orders and distancing measures. Article 227-4-2 of the Penal Code now provides for three years of imprisonment and a fine of 45,000 euros for the person who violates these measures, compared to two years and 15,000 euros previously. This aggravation also extends to non-compliance with the immediate provisional protection order (OPPI), a mechanism created by the same law.
| Situation | Applicable text | Maximum penalties (since 2024) |
|---|---|---|
| Non-compliance by the perpetrator of the violence | Art. 227-4-2 of the Penal Code | 3 years of imprisonment, 45,000 euros fine |
| Non-compliance by the victim (voluntary contact) | No specific criminal offense | No penalty directly provided |
| Non-compliance with an OPPI by the perpetrator | Art. 227-4-2 of the Penal Code (extended) | 3 years of imprisonment, 45,000 euros fine |
The difference is clear. French criminal law targets the person against whom the measure has been pronounced. The victim who resumes contact does not, in herself, commit an offense in the strict sense of the Penal Code. For more information on Graines de Blogueuses, it may be useful to discuss this topic with a lawyer who understands the subtleties of the procedure.
Concrete consequences for the victim who resumes contact
The absence of a direct criminal offense does not mean the absence of consequences. The effects manifest in several legal areas simultaneously.
Indirect criminal liability of the perpetrator
When the victim invites the perpetrator to return or contacts him, the perpetrator remains criminally responsible if he agrees to violate the measure. The fact that the victim initiated the rapprochement does not constitute an admissible defense for the perpetrator in the criminal court. The distancing measure is an obligation that weighs on him, not an agreement between two parties that one could unilaterally lift.
Effects on ongoing civil proceedings
The family court judge may draw conclusions from a voluntary rapprochement by the victim. If a protection order is in effect and the victim resumes cohabitation, the judge may consider that the alleged danger is no longer current. This can lead to the lifting of the order or the refusal to renew it.
The most frequent consequences are as follows:
- Loss of credibility before the family court judge when requesting renewal or extension of the protection measure
- Weakening of the criminal case if proceedings against the perpetrator are ongoing, as magistrates may interpret the rapprochement as an indication of absence of danger
- Reassessment of the allocation of the family home and measures concerning children, if the resumption of contact alters the judge’s evaluation of the situation
Anti-rapprochement bracelet and monitoring devices
When an anti-rapprochement bracelet has been put in place, the victim’s voluntary rapprochement triggers the alert system. Law enforcement is then automatically notified. The system does not distinguish who approached whom. The perpetrator can be apprehended and prosecuted based on this triggering, even if the victim initiated it.
Psychological mechanisms and judicial support
Legal professionals and victim support associations regularly observe: a victim of domestic violence typically makes several back-and-forths before breaking off definitively. This pattern, documented by support structures, explains why the legal framework does not directly penalize the victim.
The distancing measure was designed as a protective tool, not as a mutual obligation. The legislator assumes that the victim may be under duress or experiencing pressures that lead her to resume contact. Penalizing the victim would ignore this clinical reality.
However, this understanding of the cycle of violence does not exempt the need for precise legal work. Dialogue with a lawyer before any resumption of contact is crucial to assess the effects on ongoing civil or criminal proceedings.
Specific risks related to the OPPI and the new measures of 2024
The immediate provisional protection order (OPPI), created by the law of June 13, 2024, allows for very rapid protection of the victim, even before the classic protection order. Its non-compliance by the perpetrator is sanctioned at the same level as the violation of a classic protection order.
For the victim, the OPPI adds a layer of complexity. Since this measure can be taken in a very short time, it happens that the victim does not fully grasp its implications at the time it is pronounced. Resuming contact during the duration of an OPPI exposes one to the same procedural risks as with a protection order:
- The judge may refuse to convert the OPPI into a lasting protection order
- The public prosecutor may reassess the appropriateness of pursuing the perpetrator
- The electronic monitoring device remains active and any geographical rapprochement is recorded, regardless of its origin
The judicial distancing measure protects the victim, but this protection relies on a framework that voluntary rapprochement can undermine. No criminal sanction directly targets the victim, but the effects on ongoing civil and criminal proceedings are real and sometimes irreversible. Consulting a lawyer before any rapprochement remains the only way to preserve one’s rights without compromising the case.