The European Parliament passed a resolution on 29 April urging the European Commission to draft binding legislation to prohibit practices often called conversion therapy. This move follows a citizens’ campaign that gathered more than 1.2 million signatures since 2026, demanding a continent-wide ban. Parliament’s vote is political and advisory: only the Commission can table an EU law, but the endorsement signals strong institutional momentum toward legal action.
At the same time, the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) debated the issue in April and adopted opinions backing tougher enforcement of the LGBTIQ+ Equality Strategy 2026-2030 and calling for a comprehensive prohibition of conversion practices. Civil society groups, health organisations and international experts who participated in these debates described the practices as abusive and incompatible with human dignity, urging policymakers to combine legal bans with survivor support measures.
What the parliamentary vote means and the next steps
The vote by Members of the European Parliament functions as a strong mandate rather than an immediate law. By asking the Commission to propose an EU-wide prohibition, Parliament aims to create a uniform legal framework across Member States where protections currently differ. If the Commission acts on the request, it could present a legislative proposal covering both minors and adults, the advertising and provision of conversion services, and sanctions for providers. The proposed path would also likely include provisions for prevention, awareness and support for those harmed.
Legal pathway and institutional roles
Under EU rules the European Commission holds the exclusive right to table legislation; the Parliament and the Council then shape and approve the final law. The petition that triggered debate — an European Citizens’ Initiative — supplied evidence of strong public demand and helped to formalise political pressure. The EESC has translated civil society input into formal opinions, urging the Commission to act and recommending enforcement mechanisms, monitoring and survivor assistance as part of any legislative package.
Why health bodies and rights organisations demand a ban
Medical associations and human-rights experts uniformly condemn conversion practices as harmful. The term conversion therapy refers to attempts to change or suppress a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity, ranging from so-called talk therapies to coercive or physically abusive methods. Research links exposure to these interventions with higher rates of mental distress and suicidal thoughts, which is why many professional bodies advise clinicians to refrain from such practices and to prioritise affirmative, evidence-based care instead.
Evidence and human rights framing
Speakers during EESC discussions and international experts emphasised that these practices violate basic rights and dignity. The argument rests on two pillars: clinical evidence showing harm and a rights-based view that no person should be subjected to interventions designed to erase or alter identity. The EESC and others also highlighted recent jurisprudence from the Court of Justice of the European Union, notably the Commission v Hungary case, as reinforcing the EU’s obligation to protect equality and personal freedoms across Member States.
Existing national bans and what a Europe-wide law could achieve
Several EU countries already outlaw forms of conversion therapy, including France, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Greece and Malta — the latter being the first to introduce a national prohibition in 2016. A harmonised EU law would aim to close protection gaps, ensure consistent penalties, prohibit promotion and commercial advertising of such practices, and set minimum standards for victim assistance. Advocates stress that legislation must be paired with education campaigns and funding to ensure effective implementation.
The outcome now depends on the Commission’s response. If it proposes a legislative initiative, the process will move into negotiation among EU institutions and Member States, where scope, enforcement and support measures will be debated. Meanwhile, civil society organisations and survivors continue to press for a text that protects adults and children alike, provides meaningful remedies and recognises the practices as incompatible with the EU’s commitment to equality and human dignity.