Let's fight for a simple, clear, and effective European definition of rape

Last month, France finally crossed a historic threshold.

Triggered by the extraordinary courage of Gisèle Pelicot –— who, after enduring years of abuse while in a drugged, near-comatose state and being assaulted by more than 50 men, chose to bring her case to public trial — French lawmakers voted to include consent in the country’s rape law for the first time. 

Her unprecedented determination to seek justice compelled the nation to confront what happens when legislation fails to protect victims: perpetrators claim they ‘believed’ a woman was asleep as part of a ‘game’; silence becomes a legal grey zone; and justice becomes fragile.

With this reform, France recognises what should have been obvious: sex without consent is rape, and consent must be informed, specific, prior, and revocable.

France’s step matters far beyond its borders.

It shows that resistance can be overcome, and that Europe is moving towards an evidence and human-rights-based understanding of rape. But progress in a few member states is not enough as long as women’s rights remain uneven across the Union.

In too many member states, victims are still required to prove the use of force or threat.

Definitions vary widely, and several EU countries still do not centre the crime on the absence of consent, contrary to the Istanbul Convention. The absence of a common standard is precisely why victims face unequal justice – and why perpetrators can escape it.

In 2023, during negotiations on the directive on combatting violence against women, the council blocked a consent-based definition of rape. Some governments argued there was no legal basis.

But the legal basis is there — what is not there, is the political will. And for survivors, that decision had real and lasting consequences.

Since then, much has changed. Awareness has grown. The Pelicot case has galvanised public opinion across Europe. Even in Italy, conservative and progressive forces just agreed to amend their law on rape in line with the Istanbul Convention.

We have an obligation to use this momentum — not tomorrow, but now. That is why we are once again fighting for this in the European Parliament. Now, the political will is here, so the only question that remains is: what is the European Commission waiting for?

Polish example

Poland offers another decisive reminder that progress is possible, even across political divisions. After years of consultations and activism, Poland adopted a new definition of rape based on the lack of consent.

It is not only a legislative change — it is a cultural one. It shifts the responsibility away from victims having to prove resistance, injuries, or violence, and focuses instead on a simple question: did both parties consent?

But national solutions alone are insufficient.

Women cross borders. Perpetrators cross borders. Justice does not. Victim support organisations warn that cases can be dismissed because of disparities between national laws.

Without a harmonised EU definition, rapists may escape accountability simply because of where the crime occurred — or where the case is pursued. A crime so serious and so deeply rooted in gender inequality cannot depend on a postcode.

The evidence is overwhelming. One-in-three women in the EU has experienced gender-based violence. One-in-20 has been raped. Sixty percent of rapes are committed by partners, relatives, or acquaintances – not by strangers.

Trauma often causes victims to freeze, making resistance impossible. Yet in countries where rape is still defined by force, victims must prove they fought back rather than that they did not consent. This outdated approach reflects rape myths, not facts.

Laws shape mindsets. When legislation demands visible resistance, society internalises the belief that a victim must show bruises to be believed. When the law affirms that only voluntary, conscious, clearly expressed consent makes sexual contact lawful, society learns that respect — not force — defines sexuality.

Support for change is strong.

Nearly 300,000 Europeans have signed the ‘Only Yes Means Yes’ petition. Countries that introduced consent-based laws — Sweden, Spain, and Denmark — have seen increased reporting and greater trust in the justice system.

These reforms do not create confusion; they create clarity.

This is why, in our report based on Article 36 of the Istanbul Convention, our goal is simple: to introduce a clear, coherent, and effective European definition of rape, centred on consent. The EU can act. The EU must act. International human-rights standards and EU treaties provide a clear legal basis.

We now have political momentum that did not exist two years ago. France moved. Poland moved. Italy moved. Austria is reconsidering its laws after outrage over the acquittal of the men who assaulted a 12-year-old girl. Public opinion is shifting. Survivors are speaking. Citizens are demanding clarity, justice, and safety.

The European Parliament must respond with unity and courage. We owe this to every woman who has been silenced by outdated laws, every survivor who has been told their trauma ‘was not rape,’ every citizen who believes in a Europe built on equality and human dignity.

Our mission is simple but profoundly important: Only yes means yes.