Cassation Ruling No. 11670/2025: The Fine Line Between Stalking and Mistreatment on Appeal

With decision No. 11670, filed on March 24, 2025, the Sixth Criminal Section of the Court of Cassation offers a new interpretative piece on the theme of the correlation between accusation and sentence. The case arose from an appeal judgment initiated by the defendant alone – convicted in the first instance for acts of persecution – in which the territorial court reclassified the act as mistreatment of family members or cohabitants. The Supreme Court was called upon to determine whether such an "in peius" intervention was compatible with Articles 521 and 597, paragraph 3, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and, more generally, with the right to a fair trial guaranteed by Article 6 of the ECHR.

The Court's Maxim

Appeal judgment – Appeal by the defendant alone – Reclassification of the crime under Article 612-bis of the Criminal Code into that provided for by Article 572 of the Criminal Code – Possibility – Existence – Conditions.

In other words, according to the Cassation Court, the second-instance judge can change the legal classification of the offense to a more serious one if – and only if – three conditions are met:

• the new classification must be foreseeable in light of the original indictment and the evidentiary material;
• the defendant must have been placed in a position to defend themselves effectively (including through appeal to the Cassation Court);
• there must be no more severe sanctioning treatment, avoiding any violation of the prohibition of reformatio in peius.

The Supreme Court's Reasoning

The Sixth Section first refers to Article 111, paragraph 2, of the Constitution and Article 6 of the ECHR: the principle of correlation is respected if the defendant can "reasonably" foresee the outcome of the trial. In this case, the conduct described – repeated episodes of domestic violence culminating in obsessive control – made the constituent elements of the two crimes overlapping, both based on a sequence of acts infringing the victim's freedom and psychophysical integrity.

The Cassation Court further emphasizes that the appeal to the Cassation Court ensures a further space for adversarial proceedings: the defendant can contest the reclassification and introduce new defense arguments. Therefore, it is not necessary to order the remission of the case pursuant to Article 521, paragraph 2, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, unless a concrete violation of the right to defense emerges.

Applicative Aspects and Impact on Practice

The decision follows the path of previous rulings (Cass. No. 422/2020, 45400/2022, and 26263/2024) but expands the operational scope of the appeal judge. For legal professionals, this leads to some practical indications:

• Defense Counsel: evaluate the possible overlap between "contiguous" types of offenses from the preliminary hearing stage, preparing evidence suitable for excluding the more serious offense.
• Public Prosecutor: formulate alternative or subordinate indictments to avoid exceptions of unforeseeability.
• Judges: provide detailed reasoning on foreseeability and the non-aggravation of the sanctioning treatment.

Regarding sanctions, it should be noted that Article 612-bis provides for a penalty of 1 to 6 years, while Article 572 ranges from 3 to 7 years. However, the Cassation Court considers the prohibition of in peius respected if – as in the present case – the penalty imposed on appeal still falls within the original maximum statutory limit.

Conclusions

Ruling No. 11670/2025 consolidates an approach that tends to favor substantial truth over the rigidity of indictments, while safeguarding the rights of defense. For criminal lawyers, this is a warning: an appeal filed "to escape" a conviction can become a slippery slope if all possible reclassifications are not considered. For its part, the judiciary strengthens its dialogue with the ECHR, showing how procedural efficiency and individual guarantees can be reconciled.