The agreed new EU directive on child sexual abuse: what will change and how it will affect Spain

On 22 June 2026, negotiators for the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union announced a provisional political agreement to revise the EU directive on combating child sexual abuse, the sexual exploitation of children and abuse material. The text replaces the 2011 framework and aims to adapt the criminal-law response to the digital reality: artificial intelligence, live-streaming and new forms of online coercion.

It is worth stressing at the outset what this announcement is. It is a provisional agreement, still pending formal approval by the Parliament and by the Council. It is not directly applicable law: once approved and published, Member States will have three years to transpose it into national law. In Spain, meanwhile, the Criminal Code as amended by Organic Law 10/2022 continues to apply.

See also: the reform of sexual offences (LO 10/2022).

What was agreed and at what stage it stands

The agreement broadens the catalogue of punishable conduct and raises penalties, while also extending limitation periods. According to information released by the EU institutions, the agreement raises the maximum penalties for the gravest conduct; the exact figures will have to be confirmed in the text finally published.

According to the same information, the text also introduces a terminological shift with both symbolic and practical weight: it recognises victims as survivors and requires Member States to provide specialised support in child-friendly settings, the right to full compensation, and accessible helpline services.

We insist on procedural caution: what was agreed on 22 June is a political text that both institutions must still formally ratify. Only after publication in the Official Journal of the EU will the transposition period begin to run. Any analysis of its impact on Spain is therefore prospective.

The new digital offences: AI, deepfakes and manuals

The most discussed novelty is the criminalisation of AI systems designed or adapted specifically to generate child sexual abuse material. Under the agreement, such systems will become punishable, as will producing and sharing AI-generated material or deepfakes. It is a direct response to synthetic material and deepfakes, whose proliferation has multiplied reports in recent years.

The agreement also penalises manuals with instructions on how to abuse children, the live-streaming of abuse, and sextortion, understood as threatening to release material to coerce a child.

Grooming aimed at obtaining material from a child is also extended to children who have already reached the age of consent where there is coercion or threats or the offender poses as a peer.

Limitation periods: the most far-reaching change

The agreement provides that limitation periods will begin to run once the victim reaches adulthood, not from when the offence was committed. This rule stems from an established reality: many victims take years or decades before they are able to come forward.

The periods envisaged are 32 years from adulthood for the most serious offences, such as rape (that is, until the victim turns 50), and between 15 and 20 years for the other serious offences in the directive (until the victim is between 33 and 38).

This logic is not foreign to Spanish law. Article 132 of the Criminal Code already provides that, for offences against sexual freedom committed against minors, limitation is calculated from when the victim turns 35, a rule that governs acts committed from 25 June 2021 (for earlier acts, from adulthood). Transposition will require comparing the domestic regime with the European minimums and, foreseeably, revising it wherever it falls short.

Fit with the Spanish Criminal Code after Organic Law 10/2022

Spain already reorganised offences against sexual freedom through Organic Law 10/2022, which reframed Articles 178 and following around consent and restructured offences against minors in Articles 181 and following. Child pornography is regulated in Article 189 of the Criminal Code, which already covers conduct such as dissemination, possession and attendance at performances.

The new European framework will not repeal anything by itself: it sets minimums that the Spanish legislator must guarantee. In practice, transposition will require checking whether domestic penalties reach the European thresholds, whether conduct relating to AI and manuals is fully covered, and whether the limitation calculation in Article 132 meets the new periods.

For those facing proceedings and their defence, the message is one of caution: the directive does not bring forward harsher penalties for earlier conduct, since the non-retroactivity of unfavourable criminal law applies (Article 25.1 of the Constitution and Articles 1 and 2 of the Criminal Code). What changes is the regulatory horizon of the coming years.

The evidentiary challenge of AI-generated material

The express inclusion of AI systems raises significant technical and procedural questions. It will be necessary to define when a system is designed or adapted specifically to generate abuse material, as opposed to general-purpose tools open to occasional misuse.

Evidentiary debates are also anticipated regarding the authenticity of the material, the digital chain of custody and attribution of authorship, especially where the content is synthetic and there is no identifiable physical victim. These points will be familiar ground for technical defence once the new framework is incorporated into the Criminal Code.

For now, in Spain, conduct relating to abuse material, including realistic or altered content, is channelled through Article 189 of the Criminal Code and the existing child-pornography offences. The European agreement points towards a more explicit and autonomous treatment of the AI dimension.

What to keep in mind right now

Although the directive is not yet applicable law, its direction is clear: broader conduct, harsher penalties and longer limitation periods calculated from adulthood. Anyone facing an investigation for these offences should know that the criminal framework is in full evolution and that advice must be based on the law in force, not on the provisional agreement.

It is worth following the progress of the text and, in due course, the Spanish organic law of transposition, which is where the exact penalties and offences will be specified. Until then, any assessment of specific penalties must refer to the current Criminal Code, not to the announced European minimums.

From a criminal-defence standpoint, tracking these changes makes it possible to anticipate lines of action, particularly on limitation periods and digital evidence, two of the areas where the new framework will have the greatest impact.