Five years ago, a 28-year-old woman in Luxembourg found herself in a difficult situation. Suffering from chronic hip and back pain, she was no longer able to work as a flight attendant. After her physiotherapist exhausted all treatment options, she was referred to a fitness centre for an alternative approach.
However, her first session in late January 2020 took an unexpected turn. According to the woman’s testimony, the then 25-year-old fitness coach allegedly pulled down her leggings and underwear to below her buttocks while she was lying down for a massage. At one point, he reportedly applied cream to his hand and remarked, “And now for the pleasant part.”
The woman – who was not wearing a top at the time – alleged that during the session, the coach touched her chest and genital area. In court, the woman explained that she did not react at the time due to a mix of shame and fear. She believed the treatment was her last chance to recover and return to work. She also noted that it was late in the evening, and she and the coach were alone in the fitness centre, while her mobile phone and car keys were in the locker room.
The woman recounted that the coach allegedly asked her if she wanted to “become active.” However, at that moment, she raised her leg to disrupt him. For this reason, she did not understand his question and instead replied that she wanted to leave, which she did shortly afterward.
The fitness coach, now 31, has denied all allegations. In court, he repeatedly stated that nothing inappropriate occurred and insisted that neither he nor the woman was at fault. During his testimony, he suggested that while massaging her abductor muscle, he might have inadvertently triggered a sensation that led her to believe he was touching her genital area.
The woman’s lawyer, however, accused the coach of being “sly” and presenting himself as “Mister Propper” in court – a reference to his clean-cut appearance and professional demeanour. The lawyer argued that the fitness centre served as the defendant’s “hunting ground,” pointing out that he had previously been in relationships with two women he met at the facility.
The defendant’s lawyer emphasised that the case hinges on conflicting testimonies, with no concrete evidence to support either side. He also argued that meeting a life partner at work is not unusual and suggested that the situation could have been resolved differently. “This wasn’t a 3-year-old child who went to the fitness centre. It was an adult woman,” the lawyer stated, adding that she could have simply retrieved her car keys and left.
However, the woman’s testimony was considered credible by the court. She reported the incident to the police immediately after leaving the fitness centre and later recounted the events to a friend. A court expert noted that the woman had no apparent motive to fabricate the allegations, as she neither sought financial gain nor attempted to draw attention to herself.
The prosecution has requested a 15-month prison sentence for the defendant. However, given that the defendant has no prior criminal record, the public prosecutor indicated that a suspended sentence accompanied by mandatory therapy could be considered. The civil party in the case is seeking a symbolic compensation of €1.
The verdict is scheduled to be announced on 27 February. Until then, the presumption of innocence remains in effect.
