Germany's justice minister proposes making verbal sexual harassment a crime, without a consent rule for rape

Germany's justice ministry wants to make sexual harassment through words and gestures a crime. Justice Minister Stefanie Hubig of the Social Democratic Party (SPD) published a draft bill on Monday. It would add a new offense to the criminal code, carrying up to one year in prison or a fine. The same draft would extend the limitation period for rape to a uniform 20 years and raise minimum sentences for group rape.

The draft leaves out the change many women's rights groups had pressed for most: a rule that sex without active consent is rape, known in Germany as "only yes means yes." Hubig had signaled support for that idea in recent weeks, the legal news site LTO reported. LTO described the draft as limited to measures that can count on agreement within the coalition.

Even so, the harassment offense drew immediate criticism from a senior figure in the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), the SPD's coalition partner. Saxony's justice minister, Constanze Geiert, said: "Not every tasteless remark has to be a criminal offense."

What the draft would change

The ministry sent the draft to the 16 states and to associations on November 2. They have until November 30 to comment. After that, the federal cabinet must decide on it before it goes to parliament, according to a report by n-tv based on dpa. The ministry has published a comparison of current and proposed wording for each amended section.

The draft has three main parts:

• A new harassment offense. A new paragraph 2 would be added to Section 184i of the criminal code. It would read: "Whoever harasses another person through a sexually determined remark or gesture that is capable of intimidating or pressuring them shall be punished with imprisonment of up to one year or a fine."
• Longer limitation periods. Rape and sexual offenses committed by groups would become time-barred after a uniform 20 years. Some of these offenses now expire after only five years.
• Higher minimum sentences. Group rape would carry a minimum of five years in prison, up from two. Other sexual assaults or sexual coercion committed jointly by several people would carry at least three years, up from two. A sexual offense that causes a pregnancy would also carry at least five years.

A transitional rule in the draft would apply the new limitation periods to past offenses that are not yet time-barred when the law takes effect.

The harassment offense in detail

Since 2016, Section 184i has made it a crime to harass someone by touching them in a sexual way. That rule followed the sexual assaults in Cologne on New Year's Eve 2015. Harassment through words or gestures alone has generally gone unpunished, as Christian Rath explained in vorwärts, the SPD-affiliated newspaper. Insult law covers some remarks but not all.

The ministry pointed to a 2017 ruling by the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) as an example of the gap. In that case a 65-year-old man told an 11-year-old girl he wanted to touch her genitals. The court found that the remark was not punishable under existing law (decision of November 2, 2017, 2 StR 415/17), LTO reported.

The ministry also argues that Germany is bound by international law to act. The Council of Europe's Istanbul Convention covers violence against women. Its Article 40 requires states to make "any form of unwanted verbal, non-verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature" subject to criminal or other legal sanction. Germany has been a party to the convention since 2018.

The new offense would be narrower than "any unwanted remark." The draft says criminal law must leave "room for failed attempts, misunderstandings, rejections and socially inappropriate behavior," especially in personal and sexual communication. A remark is covered only if it is capable of intimidating or pressuring the person targeted. According to the draft's explanatory notes, as summarized by vorwärts, that could be the case if:

• several people surround the victim while the remarks are made;
• the victim is followed for minutes on the way home at night; or
• the offender comes especially close to the victim, for example on a bus.

The offense would be gender-neutral and would also cover harassment online, such as in group chats.

Two procedural choices limit when the state steps in. The offense would be a "relative complaint offense": prosecutors could act only if the victim files a complaint, or if they find a special public interest. It would also be a "private prosecution offense." Victims could take a case to court themselves if prosecutors decline. The ministry said this leaves the decision on prosecution largely in the hands of those affected.

The draft avoids the word "catcalling," which is common in the German debate. The ministry said the term could trivialize sexual harassment and play down its effects on those targeted.

Why the limitation period is changing

The limitation change fixes what Rath called a drafting error from the 2016 reform. That reform introduced the principle of "no means no." It defined rape as a "particularly serious case" of sexual assault rather than as a separate aggravated offense. Under German rules, the limitation period follows the basic offense in such cases. For some rapes, that meant a five-year period.

The gap mattered mainly where the victim was unable to resist or form a will, for example because she was unconscious or drugged. Hamburg's justice senator, Anna Gallina of the Greens, had urged the federal ministry to act after a specific case, LTO reported. A man is alleged to have raped his unconscious wife dozens of times over several years and documented the acts on photos and videos. Prosecutors had to drop many of the alleged rapes because they were time-barred.

The draft would make rape an aggravated offense in its own right, with the same two-year minimum sentence as now. That change brings the 20-year limitation period. For sexual offenses, the clock starts only when the victim turns 30. Under the draft, rape could therefore be prosecuted at least until the victim turns 50.

The new minimum sentences

The table below sets out the minimum prison terms under current law and under the draft, based on the ministry's comparison document.

• Current law
• Draft

0

2

4

6

RapeCurrent law: 2Draft: 2

Group sexual assault or coercionCurrent law: 2Draft: 3

Group rapeCurrent law: 2Draft: 5

RapeGroup sexual assault or coercionGroup rape

Source: Federal Ministry of Justice, comparison of current law and draft

Show the numbers

Offense	Current law	Draft
Rape	2	2
Group sexual assault or coercion	2	3
Group rape	2	5

Under current law, group commission is one of the standard examples of a "particularly serious case," which carries at least two years. The draft would turn it into a separate aggravated offense with higher minimums. Causing a pregnancy through a sexual offense would be a new aggravating factor with a five-year minimum.

Official figures show why groups pressed for change. Sina Tonk of the women's rights group Terre des Femmes told MDR, the regional public broadcaster, that police registered 788 cases of group rape with 812 victims in 2024. She said fewer than 3 percent of rapes are reported at all. That estimate comes from survey research on unreported crime and cannot be checked against police data.

Hubig's case

Hubig presented the draft as a response to violence that many women face daily. "Sexual harassment and sexualized violence are a massive problem and are part of everyday life for too many women. We must not accept that," she said, as quoted by LTO. "We need red lines and punishments that make offenders feel it: sexual assaults are unacceptable. That applies to physical violence just as much as to verbal harassment and threats."

"Whether at home, online or on streets and squares, women must be safe from assaults," Hubig added, according to n-tv.

The idea has a long history. In 2020 a student in Würzburg started a petition titled "Catcalling should be punishable." It gathered almost 70,000 signatures, vorwärts reported. Several European countries, including Spain and the Netherlands, already treat some forms of verbal sexual harassment as offenses.

Legal scholars have debated whether such an offense is precise enough. Elisa Hoven, a criminal law professor in Leipzig, argued in a 2025 essay for Verfassungsblog that a well-drafted offense would be constitutional. She took up two common objections: that the wording would be too vague, and that criminal law should be a last resort. She concluded that a carefully drafted offense could meet constitutional standards.

The CDU objection

Geiert, Saxony's CDU justice minister, rejected the harassment offense in remarks to the newspaper Die Welt, reported by n-tv. "Not every tasteless remark has to be a criminal offense," she said. Criminal law is "the sharpest sword of the rule of law and not a super-moral authority," she said.

Geiert said the ministry was planning "an offense with unclear legal limits." She warned that this would raise expectations that criminal proceedings could hardly meet in practice. She called for effective protection instead of "symbolic politics in the criminal code."

Her objection echoes an earlier one from the Union's parliamentary group. In September 2025, after the SPD group called for such an offense, the group's legal policy spokesperson Susanne Hierl of the CSU rejected it. "Symbolic legislation and rules that cannot be enforced in practice do not help those affected in the end," she told stern. She called such remarks "disrespectful, hurtful and not tolerable," but said new offenses with hard-to-manage limits create uncertainty. 567 Politics did not find a new statement from Hierl or the group on Monday's draft.

The draft tries to meet these concerns in two ways. The requirement that a remark must intimidate or pressure is meant to exclude clumsy compliments, as MDR reported the ministry's plans. The complaint requirement leaves most prosecutions to victims who want them. No side has published an estimate of how many cases the new offense would produce.

Christian Rath, the legal correspondent of the left-leaning daily taz, defended the narrow approach in a commentary. He wrote that mere whistling would probably not be enough under the draft. Criminal law reforms that go too far "can quickly turn into the opposite," he argued, and the rule could be tightened later if needed.

The draft now needs the approval of the cabinet led by Chancellor Friedrich Merz of the CDU. SPD co-leader Lars Klingbeil is vice chancellor in the coalition, which also includes the Christian Social Union (CSU).

The push for "only yes means yes"

From the other direction, women's rights and lawyers' groups say the draft does not go far enough.

German law now follows "no means no." Under Section 177, a sexual act is punishable if it is done against the "recognizable will" of the other person. Critics say this leaves a gap when a victim freezes in shock, is asleep or cannot say no. They want the law to require consent instead.

The Bundesrat, the chamber of the states, backed a resolution calling for such a change in the summer, LTO reported. Before that vote, the German Women Lawyers' Association (djb) urged states to support it. "It should be self-evident that sexual self-determination is effectively protected. That is exactly what the demand 'only yes means yes' is based on," its president, Susanne Baer, said in a press release on July 8.

Some in the CDU share the concern. Axel Müller, a CDU legal policy expert in the Bundestag, spoke to LTO. "In cases of so-called shock paralysis, there is a gap in criminal liability," he said, because the victim sends no signals that make an opposing will recognizable to the offender. Hubig recently aligned herself with that view in an interview, LTO reported, but said talks within the government were still needed. The ministry said it was already working on a concrete proposal.

Terre des Femmes welcomed parts of the draft. "We are very glad that it is being raised from 5 to 20 years," Tonk told MDR about the limitation period. But she said a consent rule was missing. She also questioned why higher minimums would apply only to group cases. "In our view, the minimum sentence for particularly serious cases should be raised in general," she said.

In a statement in July, Terre des Femmes cited a survey in which 67 percent of Germans supported a move to "only yes means yes." The statement did not name the pollster, field dates or sample, and 567 Politics could not verify the figure. It is reported here as the group's claim, not as a measure of public opinion. 567 Politics found no representative poll on the November draft itself.

The next steps for the bill

States and associations have until November 30 to comment. The cabinet would then decide whether to adopt the draft, possibly with changes. The Bundestag and Bundesrat would follow.

Three questions are likely to shape that process. The first is whether the CDU accepts the harassment offense despite Geiert's objection. The second is whether the ministry adds a consent rule now or in a separate bill. The third is whether the higher minimum sentences are extended beyond group cases, as Terre des Femmes asks.

The harassment debate is one of several issues in which the coalition partners disagree this week. On fuel prices, the SPD has criticized the economy ministry's draft fuel price cap. For more on the main policy debates in Germany, see our Germany issues guide. Our methodology explains how we choose and check sources.

Differing perspectives

Should Germany make verbal sexual harassment a crime, and how far should its sexual offenses reform go?

Each position is summarized as its supporters make it, with equal weight and in alphabetical order. A summary is not an endorsement; the evidence for each is weighed in the story above.

• Add an 'only yes means yes' consent rule

  Who holds it: The German Women Lawyers' Association (djb), including president Susanne Baer

  Protecting sexual self-determination effectively should be self-evident, and that is the basis of the demand for 'only yes means yes.' The current 'no means no' rule depends on the victim making an opposing will recognizable. A consent-based model would also protect victims who stay passive or freeze in shock, and the federal government should put forward a bill to that effect.

  In their words: Deutscher Juristinnenbund ↗

• Criminalize intimidating sexual remarks and gestures

  Who holds it: Federal Justice Minister Stefanie Hubig (SPD) and her ministry, in the November 2026 draft bill

  Sexual harassment and sexualized violence are part of everyday life for too many women and must not be accepted. Verbal harassment and threats are as unacceptable as physical assaults. A 2017 federal court case showed that even an explicit remark to a child could go unpunished. A narrow offense, limited to remarks that intimidate or pressure and prosecuted mainly on the victim's complaint, closes that gap and meets the Istanbul Convention.

  In their words: Legal Tribune Online ↗

• Keep verbal harassment out of the criminal code

  Who holds it: Saxony Justice Minister Constanze Geiert (CDU)

  Not every tasteless remark has to be a criminal offense. Criminal law is the sharpest sword of the rule of law, not a super-moral authority. The planned offense has unclear legal limits and would raise expectations that criminal proceedings can hardly meet in practice. Victims need real protection rather than symbolic politics in the criminal code.

  In their words: n-tv ↗

• Raise minimum sentences for all serious rape cases

  Who holds it: Terre des Femmes, through Sina Tonk, head of its unit on domestic and sexualized violence

  The longer limitation period and the offense for non-physical harassment are welcome, long-standing demands. But it is not clear why higher minimum sentences should apply only to group rape. The minimum for particularly serious cases should be raised in general. With 788 registered group rapes in 2024 and a very large number of unreported cases, the reform should also include 'only yes means yes.'

  In their words: MDR ↗

• Start with a narrow offense and tighten later

  Who holds it: Christian Rath, legal affairs correspondent, in a taz commentary

  Street harassment is about demonstrating power, not flirting, so punishing it is right. Hubig's cautious approach is also right. Reforms that go too far, such as house searches over a single suggestive remark, could provoke a backlash and set the cause back. If the narrow offense proves insufficient, it can be tightened in a few years, as the 2016 touching offense is being extended now.

  In their words: taz ↗