The Ordo Iuris Institute has prepared an analysis of the directive of the European Parliament and the Council on combating violence against women and domestic violence. In it, we highlight the risks posed by the implementation of this act.
The directive under analysis is inconsistent with the principle of subsidiarity, as expressed in Article 5(1) and (3) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), as it seeks to harmonize criminal law standards in an area where Member States are capable of acting independently. Effective action against violence towards women is possible at the national level without imposing uniform solutions across Member States.
Furthermore, the directive is based on the unproven assumption that violence by men against women is inherently structural. This leads to an extremely broad definition of violence and a simplified dualistic categorization of individuals into perpetrators and victims. The former risks blurring the line between violence and discomfort, while the latter may lead to an increase in false accusations. If the directive grants specific subjective rights solely based on an accusation of violence—without requiring proof—an increase in false accusations made for personal gain is almost inevitable.
In this context, several of the solutions introduced by the directive must be considered highly controversial from the perspective of international standards concerning individual rights. In particular, this EU directive introduces:
- an imprecise legal definition of violence, creating a utopian vision of an individual whom the state seeks to protect from all forms of discomfort, including even purely hypothetical suffering that he or she may potentially experience;
- a requirement to criminalize unspecified “insulting conduct” and so-called “hate speech” under the penalty of imprisonment, thereby infringing on freedom of expression and violating the principles of nullum crimen sine lege scripta (no crime without a written law) and nullum crimen sine lege certa (no crime without a certain law);
- procedures for so-called ad hoc orders and prohibitions based on the exclusion of the presumption of innocence, whereby a mere accusation of violence—without evidence and without judicial verification—may result in the eviction of the accused, separation from their children, and an obligation to pay compensation;
- a mechanism for censoring online content, which may be used to remove a wide range of “abusive” statements and, as a consequence, suppress press criticism and critique of influential individuals or organizations;
- vague directives to combat “gender stereotypes,” which may be used to undermine traditional family models and to suppress individuals with conservative moral views.
Source of cover photo: Adobe Stock
