Facts
M.T. and Ö.T. were married on July 4, 1997 in Zurich. M.T. claims to have entered into this marriage solely to finance his drug addiction with the 30,000 francs promised by Ö.T., the highest amount offered by several suitors. The marriage was allegedly never consummated, and Ö.T. is said to have entered into the marriage in order to obtain a residence permit. Ö.T. disputes this version and claims to have separated from his wife only at the end of 1998 and that he still loves her. M.T. filed for divorce on May 31, 1999, alternatively for annulment of the marriage. The District Court of Zurich rejected the petition for divorce based on Art. 115 CC, even if M.T.'s allegations proved to be true. On appeal by M.T., the High Court of the Canton of Zurich rejected both the petition for annulment and the petition for divorce. M.T. filed an appeal for reform to obtain the divorce from his marriage with Ö.T. and the settlement of the ancillary consequences.Considerations
The Federal Tribunal considers that Art. 114 CC, which allows for divorce after 4 years of separation, can apply to a sham marriage. The legislator indeed intended that this type of marriage could be dissolved by divorce. However, Art. 115 CC, which provides for divorce on serious grounds, cannot be invoked by the spouse who has himself created the circumstances making the continuation of the marriage intolerable. In the present case, even if M.T.'s allegations were…