Every day in Europe, women are psychologically and physically abused in the “safety” of their own homes. The examples of violence against women are endless and its victims are countless. National and European surveys and awareness-raising campaigns have shown how widespread domestic and sexual violence are. The revelations of the #MeToo movement across Europe cast a light on the extent of sexual abuse of women and the difficulty for women to speak out against it. Many women are too afraid or ashamed to seek help, at times paying for their silence with their lives.

The restrictions brought by the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in an increase in domestic abuse, drawing further attention on the issue. In Sweden, reported cases of domestic abuse have risen since the pandemic started and the country ranked third in the EU for partner-based violence towards women from the age of 15 and above. The results of the study can also be attributed to the restrictions imposed due to the COVID-19 pandemic, more specifically meaning the lockdowns that happened these last years. Women staying at home in a toxic environment has had an extremely negative impact on the situation, due to an increase in Intimate Partner Violence (IPV). IPV affects women’s physical and mental health through direct pathways, such as injury, and indirect pathways, such as chronic health problems that arise from stress. Current research suggests that the influence of abuse can persist long after the violence has stopped. The more severe the abuse, the greater its impact on a woman’s physical and mental health, and the impact over time of different types and multiple episodes of abuse appears to be uncalculated.

Academic researchers have also taken an interest in the issue, which is crucial if we are to draw the right conclusions from the patterns we see in the statistics. Preliminary evidence shows that the incidence of IPV has also increased in Sweden, notwithstanding the absence of a strict lockdown. This is likely related to the socio-economic changes brought about by the pandemic, according to Stockholm University. Understanding all of the above is the first step to make the situation easier to handle and think of the best possible solutions to help all women in need.

In Western countries it is estimated that about 25% of women experience IPV over their lifetime. However, prevalence data show only one side of the problem: the seriousness of the problem in terms of how widespread it is in our societies. Another side of the problem, one that has received less attention, is that most of the cases of domestic violence are unreported. That means that the reported cases of domestic violence against women represent only a very small part of the problem when compared with prevalence data. This part of the problem is also known as the “iceberg” of domestic violence. An image where reported cases of domestic violence against women (usually the most severe end of violence) and homicide of women by their intimate partners represents only the tip of the iceberg. According to this metaphor, most of the cases are submerged, allegedly invisible to society. For example, in Russia, it is thought that more than 16 million women a year experience domestic violence, but only 10% of them go to the police.

Evidence suggests that most abused women are not passive victims. They often adopt strategies to maximise their safety and that of their children. It has been proven that a woman’s inaction may in fact be the result of a calculated assessment about how to protect herself and her children. As a result of that, women often decide not to report their abuse pattern or seek help. There are various reasons why women may stay in violent relationships, including lack of alternative means of economic support, concern for their children, lack of support from family and friends, or fear of losing custody of children associated with divorce, love, and the hope that the partner will change.

Another contributing factor to the underreporting of IPV is the stigma that revolves around women that report their abusive relatives or partners because, as we have seen, many times society will end up blaming the victim. As a result, many women fear not being taken seriously and being stigmatised in such cases. Moreover, due to the lack of adequate support mechanisms in cases of IPV, women are afraid that after reporting their abuser the situation could be exacerbated and even lead to a femicide. For example, in Greece, two police officers were suspended in July 2020 after failing to adequately respond to a call for help by a woman reporting domestic violence being committed against another woman in her apartment block in Athens. The call had been flagged by the emergency service as “high priority,” but the two officers who went to the scene did not intervene, only for the woman to be found killed by her husband months later.

Another key issue that rises when discussing domestic abuse is the validity and need for the term ‘femicide’, with concerns being raised about the term being gender-specific. Although the term ‘femicide’ is not a legal term, we see it being increasingly used and spread across Europe when referring to the murder of women because of their gender. While the term has been mobilised by Latin American feminists and activists since the 1990s, it has been slowly catching on in a European context. It is argued that it is unfair and unnecessary to use a gender-specific term for this violation of women’s rights as the issue at hand is not one about gender, but rather a violation of human rights in general. On the other hand, acknowledging the term femicide could mean acknowledging the problem as a form of gender-based violence. Therefore, it is argued that it is important for this term to be used when an incident occurs, not because women are not human beings, but because they need justice and safety. In order to achieve this, societies need to acknowledge the institutionalised gender inequality as the source of the problem. There is still an ongoing debate on whether the term femicide should be used and officially adopted.

Scandinavian countries are known for their strategies aimed towards achieving gender equality, as well as for the importance they give to such issues. This characteristic comes as an opposition to the rising numbers of domestic abuse towards women and femicides that have been reported in Sweden since the pandemic started. While concrete steps are being made towards alleviating domestic abuse, such as an increase in funding directed to supporting women that experience violence, domestic abuse continues to increase. This is partly due to the pandemic, which forced women to stay home for significantly longer and more frequent periods of time. The fact that those laws do not seem to have a meaningful impact brings more hidden issues to the surface. Most importantly, it creates questions such as what should happen from now on.

European Legislative and Institutional Framework: Gender equality and the fight to counter all types of discrimination against women lie at the core of the European Union's treaties. It is included in articles 2 and 3 of the Treaty on European Union (principle of the equality between men and women), as well as in articles 8 and 19 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which stipulates that the Union, in all of its actions, ensures the respect of equality between men and women. The European Council and Parliament, as part of its ordinary legislative procedure, can take steps in this sense, as well as in article 23 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, notably in terms of wages and work. Moreover, the European Parliament recently approved several resolutions on this issue.

The Council of Europe’s Istanbul Convention is widely recognised as the most far-reaching legal instrument to prevent and combat violence against women and domestic violence as a violation of human rights. Since its opening for signature in 2011, it has garnered significant support at all levels: national, regional and local governments, the public, parliaments, other national, regional and international human rights organisations, civil society organisations, media and academia. It has been awarded national and international prizes for its vision to keep women and girls safe from violence and entered into force in 2014, only three years after its adoption.

Although the Istanbul Convention, since it was established, showed remarkable results, not all European countries ratified it. On 20 March 2021, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey’s President, announced the country’s withdrawal from the Istanbul Convention by presidential decree – a procedure many experts in Turkey have criticised as unconstitutional. As of December 2021, it has been signed by all EU Member States, however not all of them have ratified it.

Existing legislations that became laws such as the Equal treatment legislation could shape the way to a society that will be safe enough for everyone. Equal treatment legislation refers to laws that have been implemented in order for everyone to be treated and respected equally. This specific legislation has been adopted from almost every country in the EU with only some exceptions (e.g., Latvia). While only a few steps have been taken, laws like this one could be considered the beginning for the equal treatment of all genders.

All EU Member States have endorsed the main human rights instruments, which oblige them to combat violence against women as a human rights violation, and as a specific gender-related form of violence linked to the discrimination of women. This implies an obligation on Member States to end impunity and prohibit all violence, to take measures to prevent it, to provide adequate protection to survivors, and to ensure redress.

Many more regulations and legislations exist about gender equality with those being the most significant that have already been implemented or are to be implemented. What we observe is that most of the legislation about violence and sexual harassment include and give emphasis to a safe workplace or a safe public place in general but have nothing specific about their households. This fact can for sure be considered as food for thought at the end of the reading.

Women are in need of help. They are in need of a safer space where they are free to be themselves without being criticised, hypersexualised, or harassed. Currently, women are unable to express themselves due to a constant fear of being in danger, even in their own homes. Experiencing a toxic environment can be traumatising and hard to accept and since abuse is not only physical many times is not even visible. When abuse is not detectable, it is a lot more difficult to be prevented.

The laws that have been implemented have shown small changes toward an equal Europe but the topic that is discussed remains as it is. It is understandable that in private areas such as a house an intervention seems more difficult yet necessary when we are referring to an abusive environment. In order for a better handling of the situation, detecting the mistakes that have been made, overcoming the obstacles, adapting and improving is one of the most important procedures that should be followed in order for the problem to be solved.

As we reach an end, we should all ask ourselves, why do women - still in the 21st century- feel like they are not safe? Why has nothing meaningful been done in the past years even though the situation has become a lot worse? What can the European Union do differently from now on in order for a change to happen?

To get a better grasp of the presented information, go through the following links: