Sexual violence against minors – the statute of limitations and its blind spots
2026-03-16 Bernhard Hohlbein, a professor at Leuphana Law School, has commented on the current debate between EU institutions regarding the protection of minors against sexual abuse. He is calling for the complete abolition of civil and criminal limitation periods for such offences.
Professor Hohlbein, sexual violence against minors is, unfortunately, a highly topical issue. Today’s discussion will focus in particular on questions of the limitation period under civil law. The principle that claims cannot be enforced indefinitely seems, in principle, reasonable. Nevertheless, you speak of a ‘limitation period dilemma’. What exactly do you mean by that?
The statute of limitations serves to maintain legal peace, ensure legal certainty and protect against increasing uncertainty regarding evidence. As time passes, establishing the facts becomes more difficult, memories fade, witnesses are no longer available, and the risk of miscarriages of justice increases. However, particularly in cases of sexual violence against minors, this temporal logic of the law comes into conflict with the psychological reality of those affected. Many victims are only able to come to terms with the injustice they have suffered and talk about it decades later. When claims are then time-barred, a second form of powerlessness arises – a second injustice.
Where exactly does the problem lie – in the rule itself or rather in its effect in individual cases?
The statute of limitations does not make a moral judgement on the offence; it merely regulates how long claims or criminal offences can be prosecuted. The problem, however, is that child victims often take a long time to speak about what happened – out of fear, due to relationships of dependency, or because of severe trauma. If the law adheres to rigid time limits without taking this particular situation sufficiently into account, this quickly appears deeply unjust and can undermine trust in the legal system. The statute of limitations is then perceived not as a protective measure, but as a means of causing further harm.
Institutions – schools, sports clubs, church organisations – currently play a particular role. Where do you see the core problems?
On the one hand, there is generally a significant age and maturity gap in these settings, which is often accompanied by a relationship of authority and dependency. On the other hand, the victim often feels an emotional loyalty towards the perpetrator, particularly when the latter acts as a figure of trust or respect. In hierarchically organised structures, there is the added factor that responsibility is shifted – upwards, sideways, to committees – so that in the end no one feels personally accountable. This complex situation encourages silence, cover-ups and the systematic avoidance of responsibility.
What is the situation regarding the enforcement of claims in such contexts – what obstacles do those affected face?
A key problem is the evidence: abuse regularly takes place in secret, without witnesses, without documentation. When the offences occurred decades ago, this makes establishing the facts even more difficult – and at the same time, the statute of limitations looms. Whilst claims directly against the perpetrator remain legally possible, they are often ineffective in practice because the perpetrator is destitute or has already died. Those affected are therefore increasingly turning their attention to the institution behind the perpetrator.
What legal role do institutions such as a diocese play in this context?
Case law has now recognised that, in cases of sexual violence committed by clergy, a claim for vicarious liability against the responsible diocese may be considered. Put simply: if organisational duties were breached at management level – for instance because warning signs were ignored, reports were not investigated or suspected cases were not consistently pursued – this can trigger liability on the part of the institution. For those affected, this is often the only realistic way of obtaining any substantial compensation at all.
Can you cite specific cases that exemplify this development?
Two particularly striking cases, dating back decades, originate from the Archdiocese of Cologne. In one case, the Cologne Regional Court awarded a former altar boy 300,000 euros in compensation for pain and suffering in 2023, because he had been abused by a priest for years as a child. From a legal perspective, the offences would have been time-barred – but the Archdiocese did not invoke the statute of limitations, which is what made this decision possible in the first place. At the same time, the court sent a clear signal with the amount of compensation awarded.
And what is the second case about?
This case concerned a girl who was abused by a priest over a period of years. Here too, the contact took place in connection with the priest’s pastoral and clerical role. The court ruled last year, viewing the abuse as ‘private’ conduct on the part of the priest outside his official duties and therefore denying any liability on the part of the church leadership. I consider this distinction between “private” and “official” to be artificial and problematic, because access, proximity and trust (seminary, parish, the bishop’s role) arose precisely from the institution and the official role.
Understandable, and how was the second judgement received in the specialist press?
Negatively. It is noteworthy that the “Independent Commission for Compensation” established by the Catholic bishops subsequently awarded the victim compensation of 360,000 euros at the end of 2025. This signals that the institution itself regards the case as significantly more serious than the narrow assessment of liability in civil proceedings would suggest. The case is now before the Higher Regional Court; the plaintiff has stated that her aim is not merely financial compensation, but that the errors of the church leadership be identified and acknowledged as such.
In your view, what do these two Cologne cases reveal regarding the issue of the statute of limitations?
They highlight how heavily the judicial resolution of old cases depends on the conduct of the defendant. In many cases, a judgement is only reached because the institution – for moral reasons, for the sake of its reputation or due to public pressure – does not invoke the statute of limitations. Whether a case is dealt with legally therefore depends less on the structure of the law than on the decision of the party against whom the claim is made. This is particularly hard to bear in cases of sexual violence against children.
You have explained the functions of the statute of limitations, and yet it remains frustrating that perpetrators can talk their way out of it using the magic word ‘statute of limitations’, leaving the victim alone once again. What role do limitation periods play in German law in this context?
At national level, limitation periods have been adjusted several times in recent years in favour of victims. In criminal law, the limitation period for certain sexual offences against children is suspended until the victim reaches a certain age, and in civil law, the start of the limitation period for claims for damages arising from intentional violations of sexual self-determination has also been postponed. Nevertheless, numerous cases show that some victims are only able to speak about their experiences when they are well over 50 years old. For them, even extended or suspended limitation periods remain too short.
Is the issue of the statute of limitations also being discussed at international level?
At EU level, the Directive on combating the sexual abuse of children is currently being revised. The draft covers all persons under the age of 18. Among other things, it provides for minimum limitation periods applicable across the EU as well as increased penalties.
In the legislative process, the European Parliament has gone particularly far in its stance vis-à-vis the Commission and the Council, and has called, by a large majority, for sexual offences against children to no longer be subject to a statute of limitations in criminal law. To complement this, civil claims for compensation are also to be made time-barred.
Although the EU does not have comprehensive, but only selective regulatory competence in substantive civil law, it is precisely against this backdrop that the Parliament’s legal policy initiative appears particularly clear.
In your view, do we need claims that are not subject to a statute of limitations in Germany for sexual violence against minors – and would that even be legally possible?
I would answer ‘yes’ to both questions. Firstly, sexual violence against children loses neither its dangerousness nor its moral reprehensibility simply through the passage of time. Paedophilic tendencies are often stable over the long term, and many perpetrators commit offences repeatedly over the course of years. Secondly, it often takes decades for those affected to come to terms with the trauma.
The Federal Constitutional Court has clarified that whilst retroactive criminalisation is unconstitutional, changing limitation periods remains possible in principle. Limitation periods concern only the enforceability of prosecution and not criminal liability itself. This gives the legislature scope to introduce more consistent regulations, at least for the future.
What does this mean in practical terms for victim protection?
Consistent victim protection requires that sexual violence against children is not effectively ‘swept under the carpet’ under either criminal or civil law simply because time has passed. I believe that the legislature is called upon to act.
A file may be closed, proceedings may end, a time limit may expire – but trauma knows no time limit. Memories do not become time-barred. The real question is surely this: should the law remain silent at some point, when the suffering still speaks? Perhaps this is precisely where the great challenge for our legal system lies: not merely in determining when a case is formally closed, but whether it has truly been brought to a just conclusion for those affected.