The debate over conversion therapy returned to the spotlight after a European Citizens’ Initiative (ICE) that passed the one million signature threshold forced an official reply. A statement posted on Instagram on 13 May created expectations that the European Commission would propose a continent-wide ban on practices that claim to change sexual orientation or gender identity. The Commission’s response, required by the petition’s rules and due by 17 May 2026, instead concluded that it would not table binding EU legislation but would concentrate on other routes to end these practices.
What the Commission decided and how it framed the choice
Rather than presenting a draft law, the Commission announced its intention to prepare a recommendation aimed at national governments, to be delivered in 2027. The executive underlined support for the LGBTIQ+ community and condemned conversion practices as harmful, while arguing that an EU law would not be the most effective legal instrument. President Ursula von der Leyen and Commissioner Hadja Lahbib publicly reaffirmed the Union’s commitment to equality and safety for vulnerable groups, but the institution judged that pursuing a legislative path could be procedurally risky and might fail to produce uniform protection across all member states.
Legal reasoning and obstacles
In a nine-page legal analysis, the Commission explored several avenues before reaching its conclusion. The document discusses jurisdictional limits, the potential for legal challenges by resistant member states, and the narrow procedural tools available at EU level. It warns that a Council recommendation or a directive might not exhaustively address the complex mix of criminal law, health regulations and professional standards involved in banning conversion practices. The executive concluded that a coordinated political campaign aimed at national capitals would likely be a more robust route than a fragile or contestable EU statute.
Responses from civil society and advocacy groups
Reactions among activists were sharply divided. Organisers of the petition such as ACT (Against Conversion Therapy) and survivor-led groups expressed disappointment, saying the move represented a missed chance to secure uniform protection. Founders and spokespersons described the decision as frustrating given that conversion practices remain legal in 19 countries within the Union, and pointed to the popular mandate behind the petition. By contrast, some advocacy organisations and legal experts welcomed the pragmatic approach, arguing that a lost legal battle at the European Court could set back the cause.
Political voices and parliamentary context
The political landscape in Brussels also reflected mixed feelings. The European Parliament adopted a non-binding resolution on 29 April calling for an EU-wide prohibition; the vote showed broad support but also exposed divisions, with the nationalist bloc and several conservative MEPs distancing themselves. Social democratic and green members welcomed the Commission’s pledge to exert pressure on member states, while others, including some French MEPs, criticised the response as too cautious given the harms documented by survivors.
What happens next: strategies and implications
With the Commission committing to a recommendation and coordinated advocacy rather than legislation, the effort to eliminate conversion practices shifts back to national capitals. The plan foresees intensified diplomatic and political pressure, exchanges of good practice among member states, and targeted support for countries considering bans. Campaigners will continue to push for national laws that criminalise or otherwise prohibit conversion practices; in parallel, organisations intend to monitor the Commission’s follow-through to ensure the recommendation 2027 is concrete and leads to measurable protections.
Ultimately, the decision underscores a broader strategic trade-off: pursue an EU-wide ban through potentially contested legal channels, or concentrate on mobilising member states to adopt national bans and harmonise protections by persuasion and political pressure. Survivors and advocates insist that whatever the legal vehicle, the urgent priority is to end what they call an abusive and dangerous practice, affirming that conversion practices are not therapy and must be treated as violations of bodily autonomy and dignity.