A marriage scheduled for this Saturday, May 17 in Bourg-lès-Valence, in Drôme, will not be celebrated. The mayor of the commune, Marlène Mourier (Les Républicains), refused to unite a couple whom she suspects of wanting to divert marriage for administrative purposes. She claims that the man, a Tunisian national, admitted to wanting to get married mainly to “obtain papers”.
According to the elected official, these declarations were made during the hearing prior to marriage, led by her first assistant. This procedure, compulsory in the event of doubt about the sincerity of the Union, aims to verify the real intention of the future spouses. The minutes of the hearing would have been signed by the two parties, which would reinforce, according to the mayor, his suspicions of marriage of complacency.
Despite this, justice has enjoined Marlène Mourier to celebrate marriage. The prosecution, after investigation, concluded that no element proved the insincerity of the Union. “The prosecutor forces us to marry,” deplored the elected official on BFMTV, expressing her frustration with a police investigation that she considers insufficient.
By refusing to apply this decision, the mayor is exposed to legal proceedings. She risks up to five years in prison and 75,000 euros fine. The offense could be reclassified as abuse of power, even discrimination, according to Julien Martin, lawyer in foreign law.
The case raises the sensitive question of the discretion of mayors in the validation of civil unions. “The right to marry is a fundamental freedom, guaranteed by the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights,” recalls Maître Martin. Refusing a marriage without formal evidence of fraud can thus prove to be legally risky.
As for the future spouses, they maintain their will to unite for love. They claim to share common life projects, and denounce what they consider as an attack on their freedom. The case relaunches the debate on mixed marriages and suspicions of complacency, at the crossroads of migratory issues and individual freedoms.
