Most violence against women occurs in countries that have adopted the Istanbul Convention – latest EU report

Pixabay

• The results of the latest report, EU Gender-based Violence Survey – Key Results, on the topic of violence against women, which includes data from 27 member states, show that Scandinavian countries such as Denmark, Finland, and Sweden have some of the highest rates of violence against women (52%, 47%, and 46%, respectively).

• The rate in Poland is only 19%, and is one of the lowest in Europe.

• This report was prepared by the European Union’s Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA), Eurostat (the EU’s statistical office), and the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE).

• The report indicates that Western countries, particularly those Nordic/Scandinavian countries which ratified the Istanbul Convention early on, have higher rates of violence against women than those countries which have never adopted it.

• The Istanbul Convention, officially known as the Council of Europe’s Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence, has been the subject of intense debate for years due to controversy over its contents and doubts about its actual impact on the protection of women.

• The terms and definitions used in the EU study allow for a broad analysis of the phenomenon of violence, while such a wide topical scope raises questions about the accuracy of its results as well as the feasibility of effectively implementing its conclusions within the legal systems of the individual member states.

The report “EU Gender-based Violence Survey - Key Results,” which was produced by the EU’s Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA), Eurostat (the EU’s statistical office), and the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE), is the newest and most comprehensive source of data on violence against women across the 27 EU countries. It was conducted based on interviews with 114,023 women drawn from a representative sample of each member state’s population (aged 18-74). Data was collected between 2020 and 2024, and the methods used included in-person, telephone, and online interviews that were conducted in each country. The report’s aim is to analyze the prevalence of various forms of violence against women, note their consequences, and examine the victims’ interactions with various support systems.

Structure and results of the report

The report is divided into four main sections:

1. General violence – from any perpetrator – 30.7% of women in the EU have experienced physical or sexual violence, or threats of violence. The highest rates of violence were recorded in the Nordic countries: Finland (57.1%), Sweden (52.5%), and Denmark (47.5%). Some of the lowest rates were found in Poland (16.7%) and Bulgaria (11.9%).
2. Intimate-partner violence – 17.7% of women have been victims of violence perpetrated by a current or former partner. One of the lowest rates in this category was recorded in Poland (11.2%), and the highest was in Hungary (41.1%).
3. Violence from third parties (other than an intimate partner) – 20.2% of women have suffered violence committed by people other than their intimate partners after the age of 15. Finland (46.5%) and Sweden (42%) top the list, with Czechia, Poland, and Bulgaria at the bottom (less than 10%).
4. Sexual harassment in the workplace – as many as 30.8% of women have experienced sexual harassment at some point in their professional lives. As many as 30.8% of women in the EU reported workplace harassment, with the highest rates being found in Sweden (55.4%) and Finland (53.7%), while the lowest were in Poland (13%) and Bulgaria (12.2%).

This data raises questions about the reasons for the high rates of violence in some countries, especially when viewed in the context of their liberal migration policies. Nordic countries such as Sweden and Denmark have for many years received significant numbers of migrants from regions where gender equality is scarcely known. Consequently, violence against women may be the result of a clash of differing value systems.

Sexual violence is especially commonplace in some countries:

• Sweden (41.0%), Finland (37.3%), Denmark (33.3%), Luxembourg (30.0%), and the Netherlands (28.6%).
• In Hungary, physical violence or threats (31.2%) were reported more frequently than sexual violence (17.9%).

The report also offers the following clarification: “In the context of the survey, intimate partners include a partner by marriage, civil union or registered partnership or another person with whom the respondent is in a relationship. The latter can include intimate partners who are or are not living with the respondent (e.g. dating partners). It includes the respondent’s current partner and any former partners, male or female. The results presented in this chapter refer to the experiences of women who had an intimate partner at the time of the survey (current partner) or had an intimate partner in the past (former partner). The results presented later in this chapter also include the prevalence of violence perpetrated by domestic perpetrators, who include intimate partners and relatives, as well as other people who were living with the respondent when the incident of violence took place.”

An expanded definition of “intimate partners”

The definition of “intimate partners” used in the study covers a wide spectrum of relationships, from formal marriages and "partnerships” to various types of informal relationships. The inclusion of former partners, regardless of whether they were currently living with the victim or not, underscores the fact that violence can also occur after a relationship ends or when relationships are not based on a shared household. This range of definitions perhaps better captures the diversity of women’s experiences, but it also complicates the analysis of the report’s results, as its categories are very broad.

Violence committed by “domestic abusers”

The report indicates that its definition of domestic violence includes not only intimate partners, but also relatives and others living in the same household as the victim. This is important, because victims of domestic violence can suffer at the hands of either family members (e.g., parents or siblings) or roommates, and violence against one person can also affect other family members (e.g., younger siblings). This expansion of the definition underscores the need to analyze violence within the context of the entire home environment, and not only within intimate relationships.

Criticism in regards to the Istanbul Convention’s implementation

The definition of domestic violence used in the Council of Europe’s Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (commonly referred to as the “Istanbul Convention”) likewise covers a wide spectrum of perpetrators, from intimate partners to family members. The lack of precise criteria and unambiguous definitions can lead to errors of interpretation in legal practice, however. In countries such as Poland, the implementation of the Istanbul Convention has raised concerns that it could lead to an overextension of responsibility to include those situations which should not necessarily be treated as domestic violence under criminal law.

Interestingly, high rates of violence were recorded in countries such as Finland (57.1%), Sweden (52.5%), and Denmark (47.5%), which were among the earliest signatories to the Istanbul Convention. In contrast, Poland, which ratified the Convention relatively late (specifically, in April 2015), has a rate of only 16.7%, putting it among the safest EU countries in this regard. Bulgaria, which has never ratified the Istanbul Convention, also enjoys very low rates of violence against women when compared to other European Union member states.

The Istanbul Convention assumes that violence against women is structural, stemming from gender inequality and traditional social roles. Its Preamble states that violence against women is a “structural tool of domination,” which is in itself controversial. In our own analysis, the Ordo Iuris Institute has noted that this approach ignores the actual causes of violence. Its focus on “gender-based violence” marginalizes violence committed against other groups, such as men and seniors. In addition, data from the report indicates that support systems in the Nordic countries are not handling victims of violence effectively, which may be due to the ideologization of the problem.

Domestic laws versus the Convention’s solutions

Poland had already developed procedures for protecting victims of violence before the Convention’s ratification:

• The Criminal Code penalizes domestic and sexual violence.
• The Law on Prevention of Domestic Violence introduced the option to immediately isolate a perpetrator from the victim.
• Support centers and a nationwide help line are in place.

Instead of strengthening these tools, the Istanbul Convention promotes the redefinition of terms and introduces new concepts such as “gender” and “structural violence.” The Group of Experts on Action against Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (GREVIO), which oversees the Convention’s implementation, has further stirred up controversy in relation to violations of states’ sovereignty as well as its over-interpretation of regulations. GREVIO is the body which monitors the implementation of the Istanbul Convention. Its task is to evaluate the actions taken by those states which are party to the Convention and then make recommendations in order to improve its implementation. GREVIO reviews reports that are prepared by national governments, and it can also conduct country visits.

Summary

This EU report is an important voice in the debate on violence against women, and its findings cast doubt on the Istanbul Convention’s effectiveness. As a country with a relatively low rate of violence against women, Poland should focus on developing its own methods of protection, independent of the Convention’s ideological recommendations or those issued by GREVIO. Thus far, there has been no evidence that ratification of the Convention leads to a decrease in violence, and the current research results in fact indicate the opposite. Moreover, the Convention emphasizes social revolution and ideological issues instead of concrete steps to support victims. In implementing procedures offering realistic forms of protection and help for victims of violence, Poland should focus on developing its existing protective measures as well as its cooperation with aid organizations, rather than adopt ideological measures.

Julia Książek – analyst at the Ordo Iuris Center for International Law