Conversion therapy is not therapy. It refers to practices that claim to change, suppress or eliminate the sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression of an LGBTQ+ person. Psychological pressure, guilt-inducing religious rhetoric, humiliation, pseudo-medical or spiritual counselling, their aim is always based on the same dangerous idea, that an LGBTQ+ person should be “corrected”.
The current debate on conversion therapy highlights the European Commission’s limitations when it comes to translating fundamental rights into concrete prohibitions.
The European Commission acknowledges that these practices are dangerous, harmful and incompatible with fundamental rights. However, rather than proposing a binding EU-wide ban, it has opted to issue a recommendation to Member States.
This decision highlights a major shortcoming of the European Union. It condemns violence, but remains reluctant to compel Member States to provide tangible protection. In a Europe dominated by the EPP and led by Ursula von der Leyen, a member of Germany’s CDU, this political caution comes as no surprise.
Conversion therapy: why the case was brought before Brussels
The decision responds to a European Citizens’ Initiative, or ECI, entitled “Ban on conversion practices in the European Union”. This procedure allows citizens to call on the Commission to take action, provided they gather at least one million signatures across several Member States.
Behind this initiative is ACT, Against Conversion Therapy, the organisation that took this fight to the European level. Its aim was clear, to secure a ban on conversion therapy across the European Union, so that the protection of LGBTQ+ people would no longer depend on the country in which they live.
To understand in detail what this European Citizens’ Initiative was calling for, and why the ban on conversion therapy has become a European issue, we had already devoted an earlier article to this campaign.
The initiative was registered on 24 January 2024. Signatures were collected between 17 May 2024 and 17 May 2025. Following verification, the organisers submitted it to the Commission on 17 November 2025, with 1,128,063 verified signatures. They then presented their objectives on 12 December 2025 to Hadja Lahbib, European Commissioner for Equality, ahead of a hearing at the European Parliament on 2 March 2026 and a debate in plenary on 25 March.
The demand was clear. The organisers wanted a legally binding ban on conversion therapy in the European Union. They called for a directive, for consideration to be given to adding certain practices to the list of Eurocrimes, and for victims’ rights to be strengthened.
This is not a marginal issue. According to the Commission, which cites the 2023 survey by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 24% of LGBTIQ+ people surveyed reported having been subjected to conversion therapy. This figure rises to 47% for trans women and 48% for trans men.
The European Commission’s decision on conversion therapy
The Commission recognises the seriousness of the issue. It states that conversion therapy is harmful, is based on a medically false premise, and can cause lasting psychological and physical harm. It also points out that there is nothing to “cure” or “eliminate” about being LGBTQ+.
However, its response remains limited. The European Commission has announced that in 2027 it will adopt a European recommendation calling on Member States to ban conversion therapy in their national legislation. A recommendation is not a directive, it sets out a policy direction without creating a legally binding obligation.
The official statement from the European Commission on LGBTQ+ issues is intended to be firm. Ursula von der Leyen asserts that such practices have no place in the EU. Hadja Lahbib emphasises that there is nothing to be “corrected” in LGBTIQ+ people. However, this stance does not result in a binding ban at European level.
That is precisely what makes this decision so ambiguous. The European Commission condemns conversion therapy, but refuses to propose binding legislation. It has opted for guidance rather than enforcement, preferring to support, coordinate, train and raise awareness, without imposing a direct ban at EU level.
For the LGBTQ+ people affected, the difference is huge. A directive requires Member States to incorporate a target into their national law. A recommendation leaves it up to the Member States to decide the pace and substance of the action. With this decision, the debate on conversion therapy in the EU becomes a test of whether EU fundamental rights can be translated into concrete protections.
The legal arguments put forward by the Commission
To justify its decision, the Commission cites several obstacles. The first concerns the list of “Eurocrimes”, which allows the EU to take action against certain serious forms of crime with a cross-border dimension. The organisers wanted conversion practices to be added to this list, at least for the most serious forms.
The Commission replies that this would be a difficult path to take. To add a new area of crime to the list of Eurocrimes, a unanimous decision by the Council would be required. All Member States would therefore have to agree. In a Union where several governments remain hostile or reluctant towards LGBTQ+ progress, such unanimity seems almost impossible.
The second obstacle concerns the Anti-Discrimination Directive. A proposal on equal treatment has been on the table since 2008, but it has been deadlocked in the Council for nearly 18 years. Here too, unanimity is required.
The third argument concerns victims’ rights. The Commission responds that the relevant directive has already been strengthened and that it can be applied where such practices are criminalised in the Member States. But that is precisely the problem, in countries where they are not prohibited, victims remain less protected.
The Commission is therefore not entirely wrong when it highlights the legal obstacles. But it has made a political choice, not to launch a difficult institutional battle. It may not have been certain of winning. Above all, it chose not to fight.
Conversion therapy: a two-tier Europe when it comes to LGBTQ+ rights
The main weakness of this decision lies in the fact that it perpetuates a two-tier Europe. In some countries, conversion therapy is banned. In others, it can continue to operate in a legal grey area, under the guise of religious, family, psychological or pseudo-therapeutic support.
The Commission notes that only eight Member States have laws prohibiting such practices, Belgium, Germany, Greece, Spain, France, Cyprus, Malta and Portugal. This situation creates a real divide in LGBTQ+ rights across Europe. Depending on which country you live in, you are not protected in the same way.
This is where the decision becomes open to criticism. If conversion therapy constitutes a violation of fundamental rights, why should protection depend on the country in which one lives?
LGBTQ+ organisations welcome this step forward, but are waiting for concrete action
The reaction from LGBTQ+ organisations is not entirely negative. ILGA-Europe has welcomed the Commission’s commitment to issuing a recommendation, particularly as the text is expected to cover sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression, a key point in ensuring that trans and non-binary people are also protected.
However, ILGA-Europe has set a clear condition, this recommendation must not remain merely symbolic. The organisation is calling for it to be translated into national bans, professional accountability and concrete protections for survivors.
ACT’s message is more critical. Following the Commission’s response, the organisation highlighted the European paradox. Over a million citizens have called for a European ban, yet the EU is not proposing any binding legislation. Political recognition of the problem is a step forward, but the original demand remains unmet.
The Council of Europe went a step further in January 2026. Its Parliamentary Assembly called on European countries to adopt laws banning conversion therapy, including criminal penalties, a clear definition, and monitoring and reporting mechanisms.
That is why the Commission’s decision can be interpreted in two ways. Yes, it sends a European signal. Yes, it acknowledges the seriousness of the violence. But it refuses to take the step of imposing a common ban.
Conversion therapy: mixed reactions in the European Parliament
The debate in the European Parliament has shown that LGBTQ+ rights in Europe remain a source of political contention. Several MEPs have called for a clear ban. Marina Kaljurand, an S&D MEP, pointed out that these practices aim to change, suppress or eliminate sexual orientation or gender identity, causing lasting harm.
Marc Angel, an S&D MEP, summed up the issue more directly by stating that these practices amount to torture. Fabienne Keller, a Renew Europe MEP, emphasised that they are not therapies and that there is nothing to cure.
On the left, The Left has backed a European ban. Manon Aubry, co-chair of the group and MEP for La France Insoumise, argues that the European Union can no longer turn a blind eye to this violence against LGBTQI+ people.
However, the debate also revealed some resistance. Conservative and right-wing MEPs raised issues such as the EU’s competences, religious freedom, freedom of expression and parental rights. Bert-Jan Ruissen, an ECR MEP, argued in particular that a European ban might exceed the EU’s competences.
This division shows that the issue is not merely a legal one. It touches on the balance of power between political groups, particularly within the still-dominant EPP in the European Parliament, as opposed to the left-wing, Green and liberal groups, which are taking a more proactive stance on fundamental rights.
What the Commission could have done if it had wanted to go further
The European Commission was not short of options. It could have opted for a more assertive strategy, even at the risk of a clash with the Council or certain Member States.
It could have started by proposing a specific directive on conversion therapy. Such a directive would have met with resistance, but it would have clearly set out the political debate. Do Member States agree or disagree with banning these practices across the European Union?
It could also have pursued the avenue of “Eurocrimes” for the most serious offences, particularly in cases involving coercion, violence, forced treatment or child abuse. Although this approach would have required unanimity, it would have made it possible to classify such practices as serious acts of violence.
Finally, it could have strengthened victim protection under European law by establishing a clearer framework for support, justice, compensation and reporting mechanisms. Instead, it has chosen to defer these matters to its future recommendation.
A political decision in a Europe dominated by the right
It would be naïve to view this decision solely as a technical matter. LGBTQ+ rights advance or retreat depending on the balance of power. Yet the current European Union is not driven by a majority willing to break with the status quo on these issues.
Ursula von der Leyen is a member of Germany’s CDU, a centre-right conservative party. She belongs to the EPP family, which has remained the leading political force in the European Parliament since the 2024 elections. This does not mean that the Commission is opposed to any progress on LGBTQ+ issues. It has adopted a European strategy for LGBTIQ+ equality and states its intention to combat violence. However, it also explains a certain degree of political caution.
The von der Leyen Commission often prefers to proceed through compromise, support, recommendations and multi-year strategies. This approach can be effective. However, in the face of serious violence, it can also prove inadequate.
Conversion therapy therefore raises a simple question. Does the European Union merely wish to encourage Member States to protect LGBTQ+ people, or does it wish to guarantee that protection throughout its territory?
For the time being, the answer is clear. Brussels condemns, but does not enforce.
FAQ – Conversion therapies and the European Commission’s decision
Why do we refer to them as ‘conversion therapies’ if they aren’t actually therapies?
The term is misleading. These practices are not based on any serious medical evidence. They claim to change, suppress or eliminate the sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression of an LGBTQ+ person. This is why many organisations prefer to refer to them as “conversion practices” rather than “conversion therapies”.
Why can’t the European Commission simply impose an immediate ban?
The European Commission has the power to propose legislation, but it must act within the framework of the European treaties and in relation to the Member States. To introduce a binding ban in certain areas, approval from the Council is often required, and in some cases that approval must be unanimous. This is one of the main obstacles in this case.
What is the difference between a European directive and a European recommendation?
A directive requires Member States to achieve a legal objective and transpose it into national law. A European recommendation, on the other hand, is not binding. It can provide guidance, encourage action and exert political pressure, but it does not directly compel Member States to act.
Are conversion therapies already banned in France?
Yes. France is one of the eight European Union Member States that already have legislation banning conversion therapy, alongside Belgium, Germany, Greece, Spain, Cyprus, Malta and Portugal.
Sources:
- European Commission – Official response to the European Citizens’ Initiative “Ban on conversion practices in the European Union” – Official document of the European Commission, 13 May 2026 – Communication from the European Commission C(2026) 3333
- European Commission – Press release on the response to the European
Citizens’ Initiative Official statement announcing the European recommendation due in 2027 against conversion practices.
Link: Commission replies to the European Citizens’ Initiative to ban conversion practices - European Citizens’ Initiative – “Ban on conversion practices in the European Union” – Official page of the European Citizens’ Initiative, including the timeline, the number of verified signatures and related documents – Ban on conversion practices in the European Union
- European Parliament – Plenary debate on the European Citizens’ Initiative. Official announcement of the debate on 25 March 2026 at the European Parliament on the ban on conversion practices. – European Parliament plenary debate on “Ban on Conversion Practices in the EU”
- European Parliament – Public hearing on the European Citizens’ Initiative. Official page of the public hearing on the European Citizens’ Initiative to ban conversion practices. – Public Hearing on the European Citizens’ Initiative to Ban Conversion Practices
- ILGA-Europe – Response to the European Commission’s commitment – ILGA-Europe statement welcoming the announcement of a European recommendation, whilst calling for concrete national bans – ILGA-Europe welcomes European Commission commitment to end conversion practices
- ACT, Against Conversion Therapy – Statement from the organisation behind the ECI – Statement from ACT, the organisation behind the European Citizens’ Initiative against conversion therapy – ACT, Against Conversion Therapy — Instagram post
- Council of Europe – Call to ban conversion practices – Press release from the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe calling on states to ban conversion practices and impose criminal penalties. – Council of Europe body calls for ban on conversion practices
- Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe – Resolution on the prohibition of conversion practices – Reference text from the Parliamentary Assembly calling for prohibitive legislation, sanctions and monitoring mechanisms. For a ban on conversion practices
- The Left in the European Parliament – Position in favour of an EU-wide ban – The Left group’s position calling for binding EU legislation against conversion practices – The Left calls for a ban on conversion practices in the EU
- European Parliament – Manon Aubry’s speech on the European Citizens’ Initiative – Official page of Manon Aubry’s speeches in the European Parliament, including the debate of 25 March 2026 on the European Citizens’ Initiative – Contributions to plenary debates — Manon Aubry
- Associated Press – Background article on the European Commission’s decision – International press article reviewing the Commission’s announcement, European statistics and comments by Ursula von der Leyen and Hadja Lahbib. – The European Commission seeks to ban gay “conversion therapy”
