Name of the act: Directive (EU) 2024/1385 on combating violence against women and domestic violence, entered into force on June 13, 2024.

Subject area: Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence; Gender-based Violence; Sexualised Violence; Human Rights; European Union Law; Criminal Law.

Brief description of the content of the Directive: The Directive on combating violence against women and domestic violence^[1] establishes a common, comprehensive framework for the effective prevention and combating of these acts of violence throughout the Union through measures in various areas, ranging from the definition of relevant criminal offences and penalties to enhanced protection and access to justice for victims, to better prevention measures.

Comment

1. Context of the legislation

Both in Germany and across Europe, violence against women and domestic violence are expressions of structural discrimination against women. As a global problem, this phenomenon is increasingly becoming the focus of criminal policy^[2]. The latest instrument in the fight against this form of violence is Directive (EU) 2024/1385 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2024 on combating violence against women and domestic violence (hereafter referred to as Directive), which the German legislator, like all his European counterparts, must transpose into national law within three years of its entry into force^[3].

 

The development of German sexual criminal law over the decades has left behind a complex system of norms, which, however, has also led to increased protection for vulnerable groups as a result of numerous reforms. Socio-technical changes, such as the increasingly rapid development of digital communication, have nonetheless created new opportunities for criminal offences that the German legislator has not yet addressed in any great detail^[4]. While some areas of German criminal law already guarantee a high level of protection, such as regarding offences under § 177 of the German Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch, hereafter referred to as StGB), changes may be required, particularly with regard to offences relating to cybercrime, as provided for in the Directive. This article therefore aims to provide an overview of the current provisions in the German Criminal Code addressing sexualised violence, and to identify the changes possibly required to ensure full alignment with the new Directive.

2. Sexual criminal law (§§ 174 et seq. StGB)

Section 13 StGB protects “sexual self-determination” (sexuelle Selbstbestimmung). This term is the result of many years of legislative development, which has made sexual criminal law the product of a wide variety of measures. This “disorder” of Section 13 StGB has long been lamented without success, seeing as it is not the focus of attention in criminal policy. However, a systematic classification of individual sexual offences could be fundamental to ensuring comprehensive protection for victims, and the Directive could play a big role in being the motor for such a change. A brief overview of some offences in Section 13, which could be affected by the Directive, will illustrate how the right to sexual self-determination is protected. Sexual offences are divided into different groups of offences, with several norms exhibiting aspects of one group or the other^[5].

The basic offence (Grundtatbestand) concerning the violation of sexual self-determination is found in sexual assault (Sexueller Übergriff), § 177(1) StGB, where the perpetrator acts against the recognisable will of the victim. Sexual coercion (Sexuelle Nötigung) is then a qualified form of sexual assault. The offense of “rape” (Vergewaltigung) was retained and underwent fundamental reform in 2016, and now no longer requires the use of “violence” according to the “No means No” solution. In the further qualifying offenses, the endangerment or injury to the victim's body or life is of central importance^[6].

Emphasis should also be placed on the protection of minors (Jugendschutz). These provisions are scattered unsystematically throughout the entire 13th Section StGB and include §§ 174, 176, 180 and 182 StGB, although other provisions may also contain elements of the protection of minors^[7]. Depending on age and stage of development, different levels of special criminal protection of minors against sexually coercive acts by others are provided. Sexual acts with children under the age of 14 are absolutely prohibited pursuant to § 176 StGB, as children are deemed incapable of making autonomous decisions regarding their sexual lives. By contrast, an absolute protection against sexual contact is not provided for the age groups of 14 to 16-year-olds and 16 to 18-year-olds, since minors in these age groups are considered capable of validly consenting to sexual acts appropriate to their level of development.

The next relevant provisions are §§ 183, 183a and 184f StGB, which regulate protection against unwanted exposure (Schutz vor unerwünschter Konfrontation) to another person’s sexuality and may be impacted by the Directive in the context of cybercrime. Thus, the right to decide autonomously whether one wishes to be involved in a sexually related situation is safeguarded here, whereas § 183a StGB protects privacy, specifically the right not to be subjected to intrusive exposure to the intimacies of others^[8]. Until the 50th Criminal Law Amendment Act (StÄG), other forms of sexual harassment (e.g., “groping a woman’s breast”) were not punishable, as such conduct did not meet the threshold of significance (Erheblichkeit) required by § 184h StGB^[9]. However, since such incidents can have significant consequences for the victim's life (e.g., stress, psychosomatic symptoms, or secondary victimisation), the most recent reform introduced § 184i StGB, which criminalizes non-consensual physical contact. Empirical evidence shows that serious consequences often arise in practice, particularly for victims who are repeatedly targeted, most of whom are women^[10].

An area of Section 13 StGB which is successfully systematic is the one of the criminal provisions against pornography under §§ 184–184e StGB. However, these criminal prohibitions are nowadays viewed as outdated in light of the rapid proliferation of pornography on the Internet, and they appear inadequate to address the new risks associated with technological communication media^[11]. The Directive’s impact on this area will therefore be of considerable importance.

There are also offences outside the 13^th Section StGB that, while not belonging to sexual criminal law, may still affect sexual self-determination. These include, for example, insults of a sexual nature under § 185 StGB, although this offence should not be instrumentalized as a sexual offence, since it is not intended as a residual category (Auffangtatbestand) for sexual crimes^[12]. Over the years, sexual criminal law has only inadequately kept pace with significant developments, particularly concerning offences committed via the Internet^[13]. Reform efforts have not fully addressed offence categories that specifically involve sexualised violence. The analysis of the Directive’s impact on German criminal law shows that certain provisions outside the 13^th Section are nevertheless based on sexualised conduct. This is particularly true in cases involving the non-consensual dissemination of intimate or manipulated material, a phenomenon intended to be covered by § 201a StGB, but where the specific sexualised violence, such as the creation of manipulated nude photos (which predominantly affects women), has not yet been adequately addressed by the German legislator. Accordingly, related offences of sexual criminal law should also be included in reform considerations concerning a restructuring of the 13^th Section StGB.

3. Changes regarding offences related to cybercrime (Artt. 5-8 of the Directive)

Turning to the Directive’s implications, a first potential amendment to German substantive criminal law concerns the non-consensual sharing of intimate or manipulated material pursuant to Article 5 of the Directive. Due to the ease, speed, and wide reach of such dissemination, combined with its intimate nature, this form of cyberviolence can cause serious harm to victims^[14]. The adaptation of legal provisions on image-based sexualised violence to digital realities aims to provide better protection for those affected. Article 5(1)(a) of the Directive criminalizes the public sharing of images, videos, or comparable material depicting sexual acts or intimate parts of another person without that person’s consent via information and communication technologies (“ICT”)^[15]. In Germany, this offense is only partially and inconsistently covered by §§ 184k and 201a StGB. Article 5(c) of the Directive also criminalizes the threat to share such material, thereby addressing an existing gap in German law^[16]. Furthermore, Article 5(1)(b) covers the creation or manipulation of images or videos (e.g., “deepfakes”) that give the false impression that a person is engaging in sexual acts, and their subsequent dissemination without consent^[17]. The rapid rise of deepfakes in Germany poses serious risks to personality rights, particularly for women, whose likenesses are often inserted into sexualised contexts (so-called “deepnudes”)^[18]. Such acts cause trauma similar to the unauthorized sharing of real intimate images. These risks prompted the Bundesrat to introduce a draft law on 5 July 2024 (resubmitted on 11 July 2025^[19]), recognizing the necessity of specific norms to combat this phenomenon at its core. Thus, Article 5(1)(b) serves as a guideline for future legislative debate on a new criminal offense addressing image-based sexualised violence.

The misuse of technology to exert control, manipulate, or monitor victims is on the rise. Article 6 of the Directive criminalizes repeated or continuous monitoring of a person via ICT without consent or legal authorization, if it likely causes serious harm^[20]. In Germany, stalking (§ 238 StGB) already covers such behaviour when the acts are repeated (wiederholte Erfolgung der Nachstellungshandlungen) and substantially impair (nicht unerheblich beeinträchtigt) the victim’s life. Cyberstalking is explicitly included in § 238(1) No. 5 StGB (data spying and interception) and § 238(1) No. 8 StGB (“catch-all clause”) ^[21]. Since 2021, § 238 StGB has been expanded to capture this new digital form. A study found that 11% of respondents had been stalked at least once, with women (14%) affected far more often than men (5%), and ex-partners being typical offenders^[22]. Overall, German law already exceeds the Directive’s requirements in this area.

Article 7 introduces minimum rules on cyber harassment, addressing various forms of online abuse^[23]. It covers threats via ICT, especially when involving crimes that cause fear for safety, an area already punishable under § 238 (1) Nos. 2 and 4 StGB^[24]. It also encompasses at Article 7(b) public online threats or insults committed with others, causing serious psychological harm. Such coordinated attacks disproportionately target women in public life, such as female politicians, journalists, or activists^[25], yet no equivalent norm exists in German law. In addition, Article 7(c) regulates “cyberflashing”, the unsolicited sending of genital images via ICT. While this behaviour can be prosecuted to some extent under § 184 StGB on pornography, it is not specifically criminalised. Finally, Article 7(d) includes “doxing”, the publication of personal data to incite harm. Although § 126a StGB (since 2021) and § 42 BDSG offer partial protection, these provisions do not sufficiently address the psychological harm that can result from such conduct^[26]. Germany currently lacks a specific cyber harassment offense, though debate is ongoing. Some argue for criminalization, while others prefer educational and preventive measures, given the complexity and social nature of such conduct^[27]. Nonetheless, the Directive may revitalize discussions toward a dedicated offense addressing the unique dynamics and harm of online harassment.

Article 8 of the Directive concerns cyber incitement to violence or hatred, which can have far-reaching consequences, particularly for women, who face sexist hate speech that may escalate into real-world violence^[28]. Under Article 8(1), states must criminalize the public dissemination of material inciting violence or hatred against a group defined by gender. Germany’s § 130 StGB (incitement to hatred) currently protects groups defined by nationality, race, religion, or ethnicity, but not by gender. Debate continues over whether women fall under “parts of the population”, another category protected by § 130 StGB. A 2020 ruling by the Oberlandesgericht (OLG) Cologne affirmed that women may be considered a “part of the population,” thereby extending protection^[29]. The Directive could therefore prompt revision of § 130 StGB, potentially adding gender identity as a protected characteristic or reforming the structure of group definitions to ensure systematic and consistent protection^[30].

4. Changes regarding offences related to the sexual exploitation of women and children (Artt. 3, 4 of the Directive)

In this area, fewer legislative changes will likely be required. The female genital mutilation (FMG) offense in Article 3(a) of the Directive is already criminalized under § 226a StGB, though Article 3(b) (criminalizing coercion to undergo FGM) may require an amendment of § 226a StGB, as German law currently covers coercion only indirectly (§ 240 StGB)^[31].

Forced marriage, addressed in Article 4 of the Directive, is covered by § 237 StGB, but the German provision limits coercion to threats or violence, while the Directive broadly prohibits any form of compulsion. Thus, subtle or psychological pressure may remain outside § 237 StGB’s scope^[32]. Legislative correction may therefore be necessary to ensure full protection of women coerced into marriage.

5. Outlook

In the coming years, Germany must implement the Directive and determine how to address its systematic shortcomings in the protection of women from gender-based and cyber-enabled violence. While German criminal law already provides a comparatively high standard of protection, particularly through § 177 StGB, structural inconsistencies remain, especially in the fragmented regulation of internet-related offences.

At the same time, Germany’s resistance to the EU-wide harmonization of rape law proposed by the Commission^[33], exposed a fundamental tension between its advanced national reforms and its reluctance to recognize rape as a matter of shared European responsibility. Despite strong support from the European Parliament, the Commission, and women’s rights organisations, the proposal to anchor a consent-based definition of rape in EU law through the Directive was ultimately blocked, largely on the basis of disputed arguments concerning EU legislative competence under Article 83(1) TFEU^[34]. As a consequence, in some Member States, a non-consensual sexual act still requires proof of physical force or threats, leaving serious protection gaps.

If the fight against violence rooted in misogyny and structural discrimination is to be effective, Germany and European partners must renew efforts toward a common legal framework that grants every woman in the European Union the same recognition of her autonomy: that consent alone must define sexual conduct, and that a simple “no” must always carry legal force.

Further readings:

2024. HOVEN, Bekämpfung häuslicher Gewalt durch Strafrecht?, in ZRP, 2024.
2025. Volke, Die neue EU Richtlinie zur Bekämpfung von Gewalt gegen Frauen und häuslicher Gewalt – ein Überblick, in NZFam, 2024.
2026. ÇELEBI, L.M. KOOP, L. MELCHIOR, Deutschlands Blockade beim europaweiten Gewaltschutz, in Verfassungsblog, 10.01.2024.

Act/Judgment citation:

 

Bundesgerichtshof (BGH) Judgement of 15.03.1989 - 2 StR 662/88 (LG Hanau), NJW 1989, 3028. Link to the official text: https://research.wolterskluwer-online.de/document/795012ef-5d34-4b2c-91b8-877a65685e8d;

 

Oberlandesgericht Köln (OLG Köln) Judgement of 09.06.2020 – 1 RVs 77/20, openJur 2020, 6552. Link to the official text: https://openjur.de/u/2202617.html.

 

^[1] European Parliament, Council, Directive (EU) 2024/1385 on combating violence against women and domestic violence, PE/33/2024/REV/1, OJ L, 2024/1385, 24.5.2024, http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1385/oj (last accessed on 23rd October 2025).

^[2] E. Hoven, Bekämpfung häuslicher Gewalt durch Strafrecht?, in ZRP, 2024, p. 112.

^[3] Directive 2024/1385/EU, p. 36.

^[4] E. Hoven, Bekämpfung von Gewalt gegen Frauen und häuslicher Gewalt, in ZRP, 2022, p. 118.

^[5] J. Renzikowski, vor § 174, in V. Erb, J. Schäfer (Eds.), Münchener Kommentar zum StGB, Band 3, 4. Auflage 2021, p. 12.

^[6] J. Renzikowski, vor § 174, cit., pp. 13, 14.

^[7] J. Renzikowski, vor § 174, cit., pp. 21, 24.

^[8] J. Renzikowski, vor § 174, cit., pp. 30, 31.

^[9] M. Heger, vor § 174, in K. Lackner, K. Kühl, M. Heger, (Eds.), StGB-Kommentar, 30. Auflage 2023, pp. 1.

^[10] J. Renzikowski, vor § 174, cit., pp. 34.

^[11] J. Renzikowski, vor § 174, cit., pp. 50.

^[12] BGH Judgement of 15.03.1989 - 2 StR 662/88 (LG Hanau), NJW 1989, 3028.

^[13] G. Bezjak, Reformüberlegungen für ein neues Sexualstrafrecht, in ZStW 2018, p. 303.

^[14] Directive 2024/1385/EU, p. 4.

^[15] Directive 2024/1385/EU, p. 17.

^[16] Deutscher Juristinnenbund e.V. (djb), Stellungnahme 23-02 zum Entwurf der „Richtlinie des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates zur Bekämpfung von Gewalt gegen Frauen und häuslicher Gewalt“ vom 08.03.2022, Stellungnahme vom 10.02.2023, https://www.djb.de/presse/stellungnahmen/detail/st23-02 (last accessed on 23rd October 2025).

^[17] Directive 2024/1385/EU, p. 17.

^[18] Bundesrat, Drucksache 222/24 (Beschluss) „Entwurf eines Gesetzes zum strafrechtlichen Schutz von Persönlichkeitsrechten vor Deepfakes“, 05.07.2024, https://www.bundesrat.de/drs.html?id=222-24%28B%29 (last accessed on 23rd October 2025)

^[19] Bundesrat, Drucksache 272/25 (Beschluss) „Entwurf eines Gesetzes zum strafrechtlichen Schutz von Persönlichkeitsrechten vor Deepfakes“, 11.07.2025; At its 1056th meeting on 11 July 2025, the Bundesrat decided to submit a draft law on the criminal law protection of personal rights against deepfakes to the Bundestag in accordance with Article 76(1) of the Grundgesetz. The decision contains the draft bill in the version adopted by the Bundesrat on 5 July 2024 – Drucksache 222/24 (Beschluss); TOP025=0272-25(B)=1056.BR-11.07.25 (last accessed on 27th October 2025).

^[20] Directive 2024/1385/EU, p. 17.

^[21] E. Hoven, Bekämpfung von Gewalt gegen Frauen und häuslicher Gewalt, cit., p. 118.

^[22] Zentralinstitut für Seelische Gesundheit (ZI) Redaktion, Stalking: Anzahl an Betroffenen geht nicht zurück, in ZI News online, 15 October 2019, https://www.zi-mannheim.de/institut/news-detail/stalking-anzahl-an-betroffenen-geht-nicht-zurueck.html (last accessed on 27th October 2025).

^[23] Directive 2024/1385/EU, p. 17.

^[24] E. Hoven, Bekämpfung von Gewalt gegen Frauen und häuslicher Gewalt, cit, p. 118.

^[25] Directive 2024/1385/EU, p. 5.

^[26] E. Hoven, Bekämpfung von Gewalt gegen Frauen und häuslicher Gewalt, cit, p. 118.

^[27] T. Preuß, Erforderlichkeit der Kriminalisierung des Cybermobbings – Sinnvolle Schließung einer Gesetzeslücke oder bloßes Symbolstrafrecht?, in KriPoZ 2019, p. 97.

^[28] Directive 2024/1385/EU, p. 5.

^[29] OLG Köln Judgement of 9.6.2020 – 1 RVs 77/20, openJur 2020, 6552.

^[30] E. Hoven, Bekämpfung von Gewalt gegen Frauen und häuslicher Gewalt, cit, p. 118.

^[31] M. Heger, Grenzüberschreitungen – Anmerkungen zu den Tatbestandsvorgaben im Vorschlag der EU-Kommission für eine Richtlinie zur Bekämpfung von Gewalt gegen Frauen und häuslicher Gewalt, in KriPoZ, 2022, p. 273.

^[32] G. Sotiriadis, Die Strafbarkeit Der Zwangsheirat Nach § 237 StGB: Ein Beitrag Zum Besseren Schutz von Frauenrechten?, in NK, 2015, p. 62.

^[33] D. Çelebi, L.M. Koop, L. Melchior, Deutschlands Blockade beim europaweiten Gewaltschutz, in Verfassungsblog, 10.01.2024, https://verfassungsblog.de/deutschlands-blockade-beim-europaweiten-gewaltschutz/ (last accessed on 27th October 2025).

^[34] For a more detailed insight into the discussion around the EU’s competence to legislate on a definition of rape see M. Heger, Grenzüberschreitungen – Anmerkungen zu den Tatbestandsvorgaben im Vorschlag der EU-Kommission für eine Richtlinie zur Bekämpfung von Gewalt gegen Frauen und häuslicher Gewalt, cit., p. 273 and D. Çelebi, L.M. Koop, L. Melchior, Deutschlands Blockade beim europaweiten Gewaltschutz, cit.