Combating child sexual abuse and exploitation

The impact assessment (IA) effectively substantiates the need for a recast of the Child Sexual Abuse Directive, to expand the definitions of offences, and introduce higher penalties and more specific requirements for prevention and assistance for victims. The IA draws largely on the findings of an ex-post evaluation of the Child Sexual Abuse Directive, which provided input and concrete evidence of the need for regulatory intervention. The IA presents a well evidenced problem definition and identifies the initiative's general and specific objectives, which appear to be specific, achievable, relevant and measurable but not time-bound, as recommended by the Better Regulation Toolbox 'S.M.A.R.T.' criteria. The IA considered three cumulative options; however, it remains unclear whether such options really qualify as 'alternative options', in respect of the Better Regulation Guidelines requirement to provide a sufficient range of policy options. The IA examined all the options' security, social, economic, and fundamental rights impacts. However, although the IA mentions that child sexual abuse infringes children's fundamental rights under the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, it analyses the impact on fundamental rights only briefly under the dedicated chapter. In addition, the analysis would have benefited from a more in-depth assessment of the balance between the different fundamental rights of children and users, and of the proportionality of the measures envisaged. The IA considers that the financial impact is expected to be outweighed by the positive economic impact relating to the reduction in the prevalence of child sexual abuse in the EU through prevention, protection, support, investigation and prosecution. The IA is transparent about the evidence and analytical methods used, including the underlying assumptions and limitations. Stakeholders were widely consulted and their views taken into account; however, the feedback from this consultation strategy could have been reflected more effectively in the IA, particularly regarding the available policy options and their potential impacts. The European Commission made efforts to take the Regulatory Scrutiny Board's comments into account, but some weaknesses remain. It appears that the legislative proposal follows the IA's preferred option.