The statute of limitations and its blind spots: sexual violence against minors

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 have then become time-barred, a second form of powerlessness arises – a second injustice.

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.

In such situations, what is the situation regarding the enforcement of claims – 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.

In your view, what do these two Cologne cases reveal regarding the issue of the statute of limitations?

They highlight just how much the judicial handling of old cases depends on the behaviour of the defendant. In many cases, a verdict 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 being held accountable. This is particularly hard to bear when it comes to sexual violence against children.

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 must take action.

The questions were asked by Mathias Paulokat, MBA. A graduate in business law (FH), he is an alumnus of Lüneburg. He is a spokesperson for the banking sector and a guest speaker at Leuphana University Lüneburg.

You can find the full interview here.