Statement on NRW's draft law on protection against domestic violence

New bill in North Rhine-Westphalia – What is planned?

On Friday, 23 May 2025, the state government of North Rhine-Westphalia Draft law in the Bundesrat , which aims to significantly improve protection against domestic violence, especially for women. The draft provides for courts to respond more quickly and consistently in cases of repeated violations of protection orders. Specifically, the following measures are planned:

• Tougher penalties: Serious violations of protective orders will in future be punished with prison sentences of three months to five years.
• Early involvement of the policeFamily courts should inform the police when applications for protective orders are submitted in order to enable preventive action.
• De-escalation detention: If there is a risk of repetition, pre-trial detention under Section 112a of the Code of Criminal Procedure should also be possible in cases of serious violations of the Protection Against Violence Act.
• Strengthening victim protection: Those affected should have better access to psychosocial support and legal assistance.

With this draft law, North Rhine-Westphalia aims to initiate a nationwide reform in the area of domestic violence protection.

Statement from Women's Shelter Coordination Association (FHK)

The planned legislative initiative is fundamentally welcome, as the issue of violence against women deserves the utmost attention. However, we are critical of the fact that the draft primarily focuses on criminal law measures and thus lacks a holistic approach.

Preventive effect questionable

Experience and criminological findings show that harsher punishments have no preventive effect. Perpetrators of intimate partner and domestic violence are generally not deterred by harsher penalties. Criminology is clear on this point, pointing out that criminal law intervenes too late to prevent serious acts of violence and murder.

Criticism of the design of Section 4 GewSchG

The planned amendment to Section 4 of the GewSchG builds on the previous version of the stalking paragraph and requires victims to demonstrate the actual impact on their lifestyle. This has already been criticized in connection with stalking and leads to additional stress and potential revictimization for those affected.

Police involvement and practical problems

The idea of ​​involving the police in advance of violence protection orders is initially a good one. However, there is already a connection to the police in that violence protection proceedings are usually preceded by a police operation. In this case, a synchronization of police law with family proceedings is more necessary, since it is often not possible to obtain a court order under the Violence Protection Act to get.

In practice, victims of violence do not receive sufficient support during this phase. During the period until a decision is made under the Protection from Violence Act, they are not accompanied by the police. Support or counseling services are not sufficiently available and/or legally protected, although proactive approaches point the way. In some cases, legal aid offices are not even accessible, or the courts do not process applications within the period of the police removal order.

Based on this experience, we do not necessarily see an improvement in involving the police if a woman files an application under the GewSchG directly without first involving the police (who may have had their reasons for doing so).

Existing regulations

Family procedural law already stipulates that orders from violence protection proceedings must be reported to the police authorities (Section 216a of the Family Proceedings Act). This proposal is therefore not new; it is already law. Despite this existing regulation, the level of protection is insufficient, as the police – rightly so – do not consider themselves to be the enforcement agency of civil law orders.

Shift to public law measures

The original demand for a civil, self-determined approach to violence against women is increasingly being replaced by public and criminal law measures. However, this is only justifiable if the implementation takes the situation of violence seriously and adopts a victim-centered perspective. This is lacking both due to a lack of awareness and due to constitutional considerations.

De-escalation detention and grounds for detention

The Protection Against Violence Act already allows for administrative detention for persistent violations. While the planned expansion of the risk of recurrence grounds for detention to include violations of the Protection Against Violence Act supplements the list of offenses, it is not convincing. Similar offenses are already covered by Section 112a of the Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO), but are rarely applied in practice. There is a lack of awareness and knowledge about the dangers for victims of violence. If the proposal hopes to have a certain signaling effect in this regard, it must not be limited to a list in the law. The extent to which a further shift to criminal procedural law is constitutionally possible and would actually be applied in legal practice remains questionable. 

Victim protection and legal support

The strengthening of victim protection is fundamentally to be welcomed. However, the expansion of the list of offenses for psychosocial legal support during court proceedings is not explicitly implemented, but only through an amendment to Section 397a of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The reference in the explanatory memorandum to the fact that this would also provide special protection for children ignores the fact that the Protection against Violence Act only applies to minors to a limited extent (Section 3 of the Protection against Violence Act). There is no automatic joint prosecution or legal support; those affected must continue to justify their own reasons for needing legal support. In our view, this is insufficient. We demand that victims be generally free of charge, as required by the Istanbul Convention, as well as better remuneration for legal representation without this leading to an additional burden for the victims.

Conclusion

The draft law from North Rhine-Westphalia provides important impetus for protection against domestic violence. Nevertheless, it remains to be said: tightening criminal law alone is not enough to effectively prevent violence and comprehensively protect those affected. A holistic approach is needed that equally considers prevention, protection, support, and a functioning assistance system.

Central to this is the introduction of a consistent risk analysis and effective risk management system to clearly define and identify high-risk cases at an early stage. The draft itself emphasizes in its explanatory memorandum the "improvement of the flow of information between the family court and the police or other public authorities."

However, nationwide, proven systems and binding legal regulations enabling such an exchange of information are still lacking. In addition, data protection regulations often hinder coordinated and effective cooperation between authorities, counseling centers, and women's shelters. Only when these structures and instruments are used comprehensively and with legal certainty can detention—whether civil or criminal—be constitutionally justifiable and actually be applied by the relevant professional groups.

Frauenhauskoordinierung eV (FHK) therefore calls for the initiative to be used as an impetus for a nationwide, sustainable reform that consistently focuses on the needs of those affected and places protection against domestic violence on a solid, holistic basis.