What changed

MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION

P10_TA(2026)0120

on importanceImportance of consent-based rape legislation in the EU

(2025/2040(INI))

Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality

PE774.376

European Parliament resolution of 28 April 2026 on the importance of consent-based rape legislation in the EU (2025/2040(INI))

The European Parliament,

– having regard to the second general report on the activities of the Group of Experts on Action against Violence against Women and Domestic Violence, published in April 2021,

– having regard to Recommendation Rec (2002) 5REC(2002)5 of 30 April 2002 of the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers on the protection of women against violence, which urges the member states of the Council of Europe to penalise any sexual act committed against non-consenting persons, even if they do not show signs of resistance,

– having regard to Directive (EU) 2024/1385 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2024 on combating violence against women and domestic violence1,violence,

– having regard to Directive 2012/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA22001/220/JHA (Victims’ Rights Directive), which provides a framework for victim-centred justice, including in cases of sexual violence,

– having regard to the Commission proposal of 6 February 2024 for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child sexual abuse material and replacing Council Framework Decision 2004/68/JHA (COM(2024)0060), which includes a definition of a non-consensual act, and to Parliament’s position of 17 June 2025 on this proposal3,proposal,

– having regard to the Commission proposal of 8 March 2022 for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on combating violence against women and domestic violence (COM(2022)0105), which includes the extension of the list of EU crimes under Article 83(1) TFEU to include gender-based violence, and to Parliament’s resolution of 16 September 2021 with recommendations to the Commission on identifying gender-based violence as a new area of crime listed in Article 83(1) TFEU4,TFEU,

– having regard to the EU strategy for gender equality 2020-2025, which calls for enhanced protection against gender-based violence and for comprehensive sexual education promoting consent awareness,

– having regard to its resolution of 15 February 2023 on the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion, by the European Union, of the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence5,violence,

– having regard to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) of 4 December 2003 in MC v Bulgaria (Application No 39272/98), in which the ECtHR established the positive obligation of states to enact criminal law provisions to effectively investigate and punish rape, clarified that requiring proof of physical resistance risks leaving certain types of rape unpunished, and held that Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) require the penalisation and effective prosecution of any non-consensual sexual act, including in the absence of physical resistance,

– having regard to the Yogyakarta Principles, adopted in November 2006, and the Yogyakarta Principles Plus 10, adopted in November 2017,

– having regard to the surveys and reports produced by the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) and the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE), such as the survey of 2014 on violence against women and, in particular the survey of 2024 on gender-based violence in the EU, according to which 17.217,2 % of the women in the EU Member States have experienced sexual violence6,violence, and the 2024 report on LGBTIQ+ people in Europe,

– having regard to the FRA report of 10 June 2025 entitled ‘Fundamental Rights Report 2025’, in particular to FRA Opinion 2 on effectively protecting women victims of violence 7,,

– having regard to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,

E. whereas gender-based violence severely limits women’s and girls’ participation in public life and their access to justice, education and economic independence, and therefore constitutes a structural obstacle to the achievement of true gender equality; whereas victims of rape experience severe and long-lasting consequences, including social and economic consequences, such as loss of employment, financial dependence, housing instability and reduced participation in education or in the workplace, which compound the effects of violence and entrench gender inequality;

F. whereas according to FRA and EIGE, 17.217,2 % of women in the EU have experienced sexual violence, including rape and other unwanted sexual acts, and 1 in 20 women has been raped, with use of force, since the age of 158;15; whereas according to FRA, violence against LGBTIQ+ people has increased in recent years, with trans women being disproportionately exposed to physical and sexual violence; whereas LGBTIQ+ persons also suffer sexual violence because of their gender, gender identity, gender expression and sex characteristics; whereas the annual estimated cost of gender-based violence in the EU is EUR 366 billion;

G. whereas the cross-border dimension of the offence of rape creates a special need to combat rape on a common basis within the EU in order to ensure more consistent protection and equal access to justice for victims across all Member States, with a number of key elements: the need to ensure a minimum level of protection for all women in all Member States, the need to ensure a minimum level of protection when women exercise their freedom of movement throughout the Union, as the absence of a harmonised definition of rape undermines victims’ legal certainty and access to justice and may thus constitute a barrier to free movement, and the need and obligation to align EU law with international standards such as the Istanbul Convention, which requires the criminalisation of rape on the basis of a lack of consent;

H. whereas the current legal landscape in the EU remains fragmented, with diverse judicial interpretations and diverging definitions of rape that do not always reflect international human rights standards or the Istanbul Convention’s requirements regarding consent; whereas the lack of harmonised legal definitions across Member States undermines victims’ rights, impedes cross-border cooperation, and contributes to impunity for perpetrators and a lack of awareness of what constitutes an act of sexual violence; while several Member States still define rape on the basis of the use of force or threat, thereby excluding many victims from legal protection; whereas this underscores the urgent need for an EU-wide consent-based definition of rape; whereas introducing a common legal definition of rape that is based on lack of consent would help to improve police and judicial cooperation and enhance the collection and comparability of data on rape in the EU;

I. whereas all the Member States have signed the Istanbul Convention but five have yet to ratify it9;it; whereas of these, only two have recently reformed their legislation to give consent a central role in defining the crime of rape10;rape; whereas since the entry into force of the Istanbul Convention, 16 Member States have amended their legislation to incorporate or make more explicit the notion of consent as a constitutive element of the crime of rape; whereas the EU acceded to the Convention in 2023 for areas under its exclusive competence; whereas the Istanbul Convention’s provision on a consent-based definition of rape has been a turning point for legal reform, marking a shift from the traditional approach whereby the definition of rape implies the assumption of violence; whereas in its Fundamental Rights Report 2025, the FRA states that the Member States that have ratified the Istanbul Convention should criminalise sexual violence using consent-based definitions of rape and other forms of sexual violence;

J. whereas the ECtHR has played a pivotal role in shaping the modern understanding of rape under human rights law, notably through its 2003 landmark judgment in MC v Bulgaria, where it established the positive obligation of states to enact criminal law provisions to effectively investigate and punish rape, found that requiring proof of physical resistance from the victim risks leaving certain types of rape unpunished and fails to protect sexual autonomy as required under Articles 3 and 8 ECHR, and held that these articles require the penalisation and effective prosecution of any non-consensual sexual act, including in the absence of physical resistance; whereas subsequent ECtHR judgments, such as those handed down in JL v Italy (2021) and X v Cyprus (2025)11,(2025), have condemned the use of victim-blaming arguments and stereotypes in judicial proceedings, finding that such practices constitute a violation of the right to respect for private life under Article 8 ECHR, and perpetuate prejudice and hinder access to justice for survivors of sexual violence; whereas the ECtHR established, in its judgment in HW v France12,France, that any non-consensual sexual act constitutes a form of sexual violence; whereas in its judgment in L and Others v France13,France, the ECtHR interpreted Articles 3 and 8 ECHR as requiring parties to the ECHR to have criminal law systems capable of punishing non-consensual sexual acts;

K. whereas the UN Handbook for Legislation on Violence against Women states that legislation must provide for aggravating circumstances, including, for example, the age of the survivor, the relationship between the survivor and the perpetrator, the use or threat of physical violence, the presence of multiple perpetrators, and grave physical or mental consequences of the attack on the victim; whereas the handbook further states that legislation should ‘specifically criminalize sexual assault within a relationship (i.e. “marital rape”), either by providing that sexual assault provisions apply “irrespective of the nature of the relationship” between the perpetrator and complainant or stating that “no marriage or other relationship shall constitute a defence to a charge of sexual assault under the legislation”’;

M. whereas Article 83 TFEU should be the applicable legal basis for legislative proposals regarding the offence of rape because rape is a particularly serious crime with a cross-border dimension and falls within the area of crime of ‘sexual exploitation of women and children’;

N. whereas the term ‘sexual exploitation’ in Article 83(1) TFEU is not limited to trafficking alone, as such a narrow interpretation would unjustly confine ‘trafficking in human beings and sexual exploitation of women and children’ to trafficking offences; whereas the wording and legislative practice, including the Child Sexual Abuse Directive14,Directive, show that ‘sexual exploitation’ covers a broader range of offences, including sexual abuse; whereas sexual exploitation commonly refers to the unjust use of another person for sexual benefit, involving victim vulnerability, which is central to the crime of rape;

O. whereas Article 36 of the Istanbul Convention obliges the criminalisation of all non-consensual sexual acts and specifies that ‘consent must be given voluntarily as the result of the person’s free will assessed in the context of the surrounding circumstances’; whereas this principle is consistent with ECtHR rulings and with national case-law;

P. whereas consent is a voluntary agreement to engage in a particular sexual activity and can be withdrawn at any time;

Q. whereas many Member States15States and a number of other European countries16countries have already introduced consent-based definitions of rape in their criminal codes, which has resulted in more efficient prevention, reporting and prosecution of sexual abuse crimes and has increased public awareness;

R. whereas Parliament’s position and mandate on the directive on combating violence against women and domestic violence was strongly in favour of including a consent-based definition of the offence of rape in the text, as in the Commission’s proposal; whereas the Council, regrettably, was of the opinion that the criminalisation of rape should not be included in that directive;

AL. whereas victims of rape need immediate, multidisciplinary, accessible and comprehensive medical care, including clinical management of rape, sexual and reproductive healthcare, which comprises emergency contraception, post-exposure prophylaxis, treatment for sexually transmitted infections, as well as access to safe and legal abortion, and trauma support, and must furthermore have the option of long-term support, including psychological counselling; whereas access to certain essential healthcare services is not provided in some Member States;

AM. whereas the high prevalence of secondary victimisation shows the profound failure not only of justice systems, but also of outdated laws that are not based on consent, to provide survivors with access to justice17, as evidenced by the low reporting rates among victims, the lack of assistance in line with their needs, the availability of accessible procedures and the low conviction rates in rape cases, which highlight systematic deficiencies in the way law enforcement authorities and judicial systems address cases of rape, resulting, in turn, in a widespread societal sense of impunity for the crime of rape and constituting a serious impairment to gender equality;

AM. whereas rape culture is defined as a structural and widespread system of attitudes, behaviours, values and social norms that normalise and trivialise sexual violence, undermine consent, perpetuate rape myths, and foster the societal normalisation of such violence;

AN. whereas secondary victimisation occurs when victims suffer further harm not as a direct result of the criminal act of rape, but as a result of the manner in which institutions and other individuals deal with them; whereas secondary victimisation is caused by repeated exposure of the victim to the perpetrator, by insensitive treatment, such as repeated interrogation about the same events, by victim-blaming attitudes, by the use of inappropriate language or insensitive comments by those who come into contact with victims, by medical interventions and by legal proceedings, including their length, and other institutional processes; whereas secondary victimisation undermines victims’ rights, impedes their access to justice and perpetuates their trauma, including by causing post-traumatic stress disorder, depression and anxiety, thus hindering their recovery;

AN. whereas the high prevalence of secondary victimisation shows the profound failure not only of justice systems, but also of outdated laws that are not based on consent, to provide survivors with access to justice, as evidenced by the low reporting rates among victims, the lack of assistance in line with their needs, the availability of accessible procedures and the low conviction rates in rape cases, which highlight systematic deficiencies in the way law enforcement authorities and judicial systems address cases of rape, resulting, in turn, in a widespread societal sense of impunity for the crime of rape and constituting a serious impairment to gender equality;

AO. whereas the traumatic nature of rape and its long-term impact on the physical and psychological health, security, bodily integrity, well-being and social life of victims require a coordinated, gender- and trauma-sensitive response by trained and specialised staff, particularly in law enforcement agencies and in the judiciary, to address cases of rape and avoid secondary victimisation; whereas the training of legal and law enforcement professionals remains non-homogeneous and insufficient in some Member States; whereas the effective implementation of consent-based definitions of rape in law is dependent on the capacity of police officers, prosecutors and judicial authorities to correctly interpret and apply these provisions and thus ensure that the focus remains on the absence of freely given consent and not on evidence of resistance or physical violence; whereas placing the burden of proof on victims to provide evidence of a lack of consent reinforces harmful stereotypes about rape;

AO. whereas secondary victimisation occurs when victims suffer further harm not as a direct result of the criminal act of rape, but as a result of the manner in which institutions and other individuals deal with them; whereas secondary victimisation is caused by repeated exposure of the victim to the perpetrator, by insensitive treatment, such as repeated interrogation about the same events, by victim-blaming attitudes, by the use of inappropriate language or insensitive comments by those who come into contact with victims, by medical interventions and by legal proceedings, including their length, and other institutional processes; whereas secondary victimisation undermines victims’ rights, impedes their access to justice and perpetuates their trauma, including by causing post-traumatic stress disorder, depression and anxiety, thus hindering their recovery;

AP. whereas comprehensive, consent-based sexuality and relationships education is essential for reducing misinformation and myths about rape and sexuality, addressing gender norms and preventing all forms of gender-based violence, including rape; whereas engaging men and boys in promoting gender equality, challenging harmful gender stereotypes and unhealthy and harmful models of masculinity and questioning entitlement-based views of sex is crucial for prevention efforts; whereas shifting to a consent-based culture is key to ensuring an environment of mutual respect and safety centred on healthy social interactions; whereas the provision of gender-sensitive, comprehensive and age-appropriate sexuality, consent and relationships education is a crucial tool in preventing rape and sexual violence and addressing the root causes;

AP. whereas the traumatic nature of rape and its long-term impact on the physical and psychological health, security, bodily integrity, well-being and social life of victims require a coordinated, gender- and trauma-sensitive response by trained and specialised staff, particularly in law enforcement agencies and in the judiciary, to address cases of rape and avoid secondary victimisation; whereas the training of legal and law enforcement professionals remains non-homogeneous and insufficient in some Member States; whereas the effective implementation of consent-based definitions of rape in law is dependent on the capacity of police officers, prosecutors and judicial authorities to correctly interpret and apply these provisions and thus ensure that the focus remains on the absence of freely given consent and not on evidence of resistance or physical violence; whereas placing the burden of proof on victims to provide evidence of a lack of consent reinforces harmful stereotypes about rape;

AQ. whereas SDG 5 of the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development calls for the achievement of gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls, and SDG 16 calls for the promotion of peaceful and inclusive societies, access to justice and effective, accountable institutions;

AQ. whereas comprehensive, consent-based sexuality and relationships education is essential for reducing misinformation and myths about rape and sexuality, addressing gender norms and preventing all forms of gender-based violence, including rape; whereas engaging men and boys in promoting gender equality, challenging harmful gender stereotypes and unhealthy and harmful models of masculinity and questioning entitlement-based views of sex is crucial for prevention efforts; whereas shifting to a consent-based culture is key to ensuring an environment of mutual respect and safety centred on healthy social interactions; whereas the provision of gender-sensitive, comprehensive and age-appropriate sexuality, consent and relationships education is a crucial tool in preventing rape and sexual violence and addressing the root causes;

AR. whereas SDG 5 of the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development andcalls for the principleachievement of ‘leaving no onegender behind’,equality and inthe particularempowerment SDGsof 3,all 4,women 5,and 10girls, and 16,SDG call16 calls for the eliminationpromotion of sexual violence, the achievementpeaceful ofand genderinclusive equality,societies, access to justice, inclusive education and respect,justice and the protection of all individuals’ physical andeffective, mentalaccountable integrity;institutions;

AS. whereas Member States’ shortcomings in addressing the structural and normative factors that result in impunity for perpetrators are being challenged by marches, protests and civil society movements, such as the #MeToo movement, which are breaking the silence on rape and have been the drivers for legislative changes in some Member States; whereas cases that have sparked widespread protests include the case of the ‘Wolf Pack’ in Spain and that of Gisèle Pelicot in France, which highlight the inadequacy of definitions of rape that are based on force and not centred on consent;

AS. whereas the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the principle of ‘leaving no one behind’, and in particular SDGs 3, 4, 5, 10 and 16, call for the elimination of sexual violence, the achievement of gender equality, access to justice, inclusive education and respect, and the protection of all individuals’ physical and mental integrity;

AT. whereas Member States’ shortcomings in addressing the structural and normative factors that result in impunity for perpetrators are being challenged by marches, protests and civil society movements, such as the #MeToo movement, which are breaking the silence on rape and have been the drivers for legislative changes in some Member States; whereas cases that have sparked widespread protests include the case of the ‘Wolf Pack’ in Spain and that of Gisèle Pelicot in France, which highlight the inadequacy of definitions of rape that are based on force and not centred on consent;

1. Calls on the Commission to propose, without delay, legislation establishing an EU-wide definition of rape that is based on the requirement of freely given, informed consent that can be withdrawn, in line with Article 36 of the Istanbul Convention;

15. Firmly calls for public services to be available at all stages of the reparation process, in particular with regard to the provision of essential psychological and legal support and assistance with seeking employment; calls on the Member States to comply with the Istanbul Convention by providing protective and supportive measures for victims and survivors with a focus on the human rights and safety of the person, thus avoiding secondary victimisation;

16. Calls on the Member States to ensure that professionals who are likely to come into contact with rape victims, including law enforcement officers, forensic medical personnel, court staff, judges and prosecutors, lawyers, healthcare professionals, social services employees, educational and other relevant staff and frontline professionals, receive mandatory, regular, adequate, effective and tailored training; stresses that this training should be aimed at preventing the secondary victimisation of the survivors in order to avoid and identify harmful gender stereotypes, eliminate victim-blaming behaviours and attitudes and treat victims in a trauma-, gender-, child- and disability-sensitive manner, in line with Article 36 of Directive (EU) 2024/1385 and without prejudice to judicial independence and differences in the organisation of the judiciary across the EU; calls on the Commission to expand EU-supported training programmes aligned with judicial best practice and calls on the Member States to ensure that frontline services have the capacity and resources to respond effectively to the needs of victims and survivors;survivors by securing mandatory training for all legal professionals and law enforcement staff in contact with victims of rape;

17. Calls on the Member States to ensure that health professionals, including paediatricians, gynaecologists, obstetricians, midwives and psychological support staff, receive targeted training to identify and address, in an intersectional manner, the physical, psychological and sexual consequences of rape in survivors;

33. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission.

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

The Council of Europe’s Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence, known as the Istanbul Convention, is the most comprehensive international treaty addressing gender-based violence. It defines rape as any sexual act committed without the victim’s freely given consent, establishing the absence of consent as the core legal standard. The Convention is legally binding and requires all signatory states to criminalise all non-consensual sexual acts as violations of a person’s bodily integrity and sexual autonomy, not as crimes against morality, family honour or public decency.

All EU Member States have signed the Istanbul Convention, and the European Union acceded to the Convention in 2023, in areas where it holds exclusive competence. This marks a vital step in the EU’s commitment to adhering to international human right standards regarding gender-based violence, including centring the absence of consent in legal definitions of rape. However, the absence of a harmonised, consent-based definition of rape leads to stark disparities in protection for survivors across the EU and undermines access to justice and the effective prosecution of sexual violence.

Reforming rape laws to centre on consent is essential. It sends a strong message about the kind of society we strive for – one that is free from rape and where everyone’s sexual autonomy and bodily integrity are respected, protected and valued. While legal reform alone cannot end sexual violence, it is a crucial first step toward challenging harmful attitudes, ensuring justice for survivors, and holding perpetrators accountable. It also serves a crucial preventive function by reshaping societal norms, fostering a culture of mutual respect, and clearly signalling that sexual violence will not be tolerated.

Importantly, most rapes are not committed by strangers in dark alleys, but often by a friend or partner, and they do not always involve physical violence or visible resistance. Most victims experience what is known as the ‘freeze response’, a common survival reaction to trauma in which the body becomes immobilised. This involuntary reaction can prevent the victim from physically fighting back or saying no. Scientific research and trauma-informed approaches confirm that freezing is a natural response to fear and threat, and the absence of resistance does not equal consent.

Sexual violence and rape are not only serious crimes under national law, but also a violation of international human rights law. It infringes upon multiple fundamental rights, including the right to dignity, physical and mental integrity, liberty and personal security, freedom from discrimination and protection from torture or inhuman and degrading treatment.

Under international law, rape is recognised as a war crime, a crime against humanity and in certain cases, an act of genocide, provided other requisite elements of these crimes are present. The International Criminal Court (ICC) includes lack of consent as a key element in its legal definition of rape, reflecting global consensus on this standard. Hence, sexual violence is criminalised in both war and peacetime, underscoring the severity of the crime.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has affirmed in its case law that absence of physical resistance does not imply consent. State Parties to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) have a positive obligation to criminalise and effectively prosecute all non-consensual sexual acts, including in the absence of physical resistance. The Court has also stressed that victim-blaming and the use of harmful gender stereotypes in legal proceedings violate victims’ rights and obstruct access to justice.

The European Parliament has consistently supported a strong and survivor-centred legal framework on gender-based violence. During the negotiations on the Directive on combating violence against women and domestic violence, the European Parliament called for the explicit inclusion of rape based on lack of consent, as originally proposed by the European Commission. There is a clear legal basis under Article 83(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU), which allows the EU to legislate on particularly serious crimes with a cross-border dimension, including sexual exploitation of women and children. Instruments such as the Victims’ Rights Directive and the Anti-Trafficking Directive establish important protections for victims of violence, yet they do not clearly define rape in line with the Istanbul Convention. Thus, incorporating consent-based definitions fills this gap and strengthens the coherence and effectiveness of EU law in protecting victims.

However, to create long-lasting change and a legal and cultural environment where sexual violence is no longer tolerated, it is not enough to reform legislation. Concerted efforts to challenge widespread harmful rape myths and gender stereotypes shall accompany changes in law. Comprehensive sexuality education must also be provided to promote healthy relationships, mutual respect, and a clear understanding of consent from an early age.

Justice professionals – including police officers, lawyers, prosecutors, and judges – must be trained in trauma-informed approaches, the psychological impact of rape, and the legal significance of consent, to ensure fair and respectful treatment of survivors, avoid secondary victimisation and ensure meaningful access to justice. When the law reflects the lived realities of survivors and guarantees effective prosecution, it strengthens trust in the justice system, empowers victims to come forward and regain their sense of agency, and contributes to ending the impunity for sexual violence in Europe.

ANNEX: DECLARATION OF INPUT

Pursuant to Article 8 of Annex I to the Rules of Procedure, the rapporteurs declare that they included in their report input on matters pertaining to the subject of the file that they received, in the preparation of the report, prior to the adoption thereof in committee, from the following interest representatives falling within the scope of the Interinstitutional Agreement on a mandatory transparency register1, or from the following representatives of public authorities of third countries, including their diplomatic missions and embassies:

The list above is drawn up under the exclusive responsibility of the rapporteurs.

Where natural persons are identified in the list by their name, by their function or by both, the rapporteurs declare that they have submitted to the natural persons concerned the European Parliament’s Data Protection Notice No 484 (https://www.europarl.europa.eu/data-protect/index.do), which sets out the conditions applicable to the processing of their personal data and the rights linked to that processing.

MINORITY POSITION

pursuant to Rule 56(4) of the Rules of Procedure

Pascale Piera, Fabrice Leggeri, Susanna Ceccardi, Petra Steger, Tom Vandendriessche, Catherine Griset, Margarita de la Pisa, Elisabeth Dieringer, Laurence Trochu, Nicolas Bay, Paolo Inselvini

Minority Position – PfE Legislation on the importance of consent-based rape legislation in the EU

Pascale Piera, Fabrice Leggeri, Susanna Ceccardi, Petra Steger, Tom Vandendriessche

We would like to reiterate, in the clearest possible terms, that we fully support victims of rape and sexual violence. Protecting and supporting them and imposing strong penalties must be a top priority. However, there is no legal basis for this report. Article 83(1) TFEU makes it possible to harmonise only certain ‘euro-crimes’, which it lists expressly, and which have a cross-border aspect. Rape is not included and is not, by its very nature, a cross-border crime. The Council’s Legal Service confirmed that fact in 2022, which led to the exclusion of rape from the 2024 directive. Nor does the Istanbul Convention confer any new competence on the EU in this area. Its concluding decision is based, among other provisions, on Article 84 TFEU, which excludes any harmonisation of national criminal laws. What is more, its explanatory report leaves states free to formulate their own definition. To vote against this text is not to oppose the concept of consent in cases of rape and sexual violence, but to protect states’ sovereignty in criminal matters and support strict adherence to the Treaties, and to reject the exploitation of women’s rights to the benefit of a supranational project.

Minority Position – PfE Legislation on the importance of consent-based rape legislation in the EU

Catherine Griset, Margarita de la Pisa, Elisabeth Dieringer

One in three women in Europe have experienced physical or sexual violence. Advocating for a harmonised definition based on the legally unclear concept of lack of consent undermines both the victim and the law. In Spain, the law on consent led to reductions in the sentences of more than 200 sex offenders and to release for some of them. We cannot take the same risk at EU level. This proposal for harmonisation is chiefly a way for the left to advance woke ideology in Europe. For example, the text stresses the importance of the use of woke concepts in support for victims: tackling supposed ‘rape culture’, intersectionality, secondary victimisation and the central role of gender stereotypes. Our position on this sensitive matter comes down to common sense: it is a question of condemning the guilty and ensuring they serve their sentences, providing victims with proper and effective care, protecting everyone’s safety in public spaces, deporting foreign sex offenders, and, most importantly, educating society’s youngest to build relationships based on mutual respect and consent rather than suspicion.

Minority Opinion – ECR – L. Trochu, N. Bay, P. Inselvini

We believe that basing rape legislation on the concept of consent poses a twofold problem, firstly for rape victims and secondly for the jurisdiction of Member States. In particular, the recommendations in this report would: – Make the legal process more difficult for rape victims, as they would be required to prove both the rape and the absence of consent. – Risk reversing the burden of proof, with the accused having to prove consent and therefore their innocence, which is contrary to European legal tradition. – Moralise desire and transform sexual relations, particularly consensual ones, into a protocol and an exchange of procedures, introducing suspicion into every moment of intimacy. – Do not take into account the different approaches of Member States, fail to sufficiently respect the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality as well as the general absence of cross-border elements that would justify EU competence in defining a new EU criminal offence. Despite our desire to do justice to rape victims and encourage the reporting of these crimes, we cannot support this report in its current form.

INFORMATION ON ADOPTION IN COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE

FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL BY THE COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE

Key:

+ : in favour

- : against

0 : abstentions