Stalking and Complaint: The 2025 Supreme Court Ruling on the Prosecutability of Habitual Offence (Judgment no. 18868/2025)

The crime of persecutory acts, commonly known as stalking, poses a serious threat to the freedom and peace of mind of victims. Its nature, linked to the repetition of conduct, is often at the center of legal debates. The recent Judgment of the Court of Cassation no. 18868, filed on May 20, 2025, offers crucial clarifications on the prosecutability of this crime, strengthening protection for victims and defining the role of the complaint.

The Nature of the Stalking Offence and the Complaint

Article 612-bis of the Italian Penal Code punishes anyone who, through repeated conduct, threatens or harasses in a manner that causes severe anxiety, a well-founded fear for personal safety, or compels them to alter their daily habits. This offence is "habitual," requiring a plurality of actions that, taken together, create a pattern of persecution. The prosecutability of stalking is subject to a complaint by the offended party, a fundamental act that initiates criminal proceedings.

The crime of persecutory acts is inherently an "improper habitual offence" for which, if the repetition concerns conduct carried out even after the filing of the complaint, the condition of prosecutability extends to the latter, which, considered collectively with the previous acts, constitute the objective element of the crime.

This maxim from Judgment no. 18868/2025 is of vital importance. It clarifies that stalking is an "improper habitual offence." This means that if the victim files a complaint and the persecutory acts continue, it is not necessary to file a new complaint for the subsequent conduct. The condition of prosecutability automatically extends to these latter acts. All acts, both prior and subsequent to the complaint, are considered collectively as part of a single persecutory conduct, integrating the objective element of the crime. This interpretation consolidates protection for victims, in line with previous case law (e.g., Rv. 273640-01).

Practical Implications: Continuous Protection and Legal Certainty

The decision of the Court of Cassation, presided over by C. R. and with A. F. as rapporteur, has direct consequences for victims and the judicial system:

• Continuity of Protection: The initial complaint covers the entire persecutory conduct, even if it continues over time, relieving the victim of the burden of new reports.
• Unitary Assessment: Conduct, both pre- and post-complaint, is considered as a whole, allowing the judge to grasp the overall severity of the phenomenon.
• Legal Certainty: The judgment consolidates the case law on the nature of the offence, providing procedural and operational clarity.

It is essential for victims of stalking to be aware of this principle. The complaint is a decisive act that triggers an extended protection mechanism, and the persistence of conduct does not render the complaint ineffective but rather strengthens the evidence of repetition and the seriousness of the crime.

Conclusions: A Fundamental Step for Justice

Judgment no. 18868/2025 of the Court of Cassation strengthens protection against stalking. By reiterating the nature of the improper habitual offence and the extension of prosecutability, the Court ensures that the act of reporting has full efficacy over time, without the need for further formalities. This not only simplifies the procedural process but also sends a clear message to persecutors about the seriousness and continuity of criminal action. For those facing stalking, seeking advice from experienced legal professionals is always the best choice to ensure the protection of their rights.