Territorial Jurisdiction for Revenge Porn: The Cassation Court's Stance with Ruling no. 18473/2025

The Italian legal landscape is constantly evolving, especially when facing the challenges posed by new technologies and crimes that arise in the digital context. Among these, so-called “revenge porn”, the unlawful dissemination of sexually explicit images or videos without the consent of the person depicted, represents one of the most insidious and devastating forms of online violence. The Criminal Code, in Article 612-ter, penalises this conduct, but procedural complexities often arise, particularly regarding the determination of the judge's territorial jurisdiction.

The Court of Cassation, with ruling no. 18473, filed on May 16, 2025, intervenes precisely on this delicate issue, offering a fundamental clarification for legal professionals and citizens. The ruling, presided over by Dr. R. Pezzullo and drafted by Dr. E. V. S. Scarlini, addresses the case of a defendant, G. P.M. S. G., and establishes the criteria for identifying the competent court when the exact place of commission of the crime cannot be determined.

The Crime of Revenge Porn and the Challenge of Territorial Jurisdiction

The crime of unlawful dissemination of sexually explicit images or videos, introduced into our legal system with Law no. 69/2019 (the so-called “Red Code”), aims to protect the dignity and privacy of victims, who are often exposed to irreversible public shaming. However, the digital nature of these conducts often makes it difficult to apply the general rule on territorial jurisdiction, established by Article 8 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This rule stipulates that jurisdiction belongs to the judge of the place where the crime was committed. But how is this place identified when images are uploaded to an online platform or sent via instant messaging, with recipients potentially scattered everywhere and servers located in different jurisdictions?

It is precisely in these situations of uncertainty that supplementary criteria come into play, essential tools to ensure that every crime finds its judge and that justice can be administered. The ruling in question focuses on this gap, providing a compass to navigate the labyrinth of jurisdictions.

The Cassation Court's Intervention: The Maxim of Ruling no. 18473/2025

The Supreme Court of Cassation has clearly ruled, outlining the logical-legal path to follow. The maxim of the ruling, which we report in full, is an indispensable point of reference:

Territorial jurisdiction for the crime of unlawful dissemination of sexually explicit images or videos, where the general rule of art. 8 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be applied due to the impossibility of identifying the place of first sending of the images or videos to the recipient, is determined based on the supplementary criteria, considered, in a gradual order, by art. 9 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Case in which the Court, not having identified the place of commission of the crime nor the place where part of the conduct was committed, determined jurisdiction in the judicial office of the place where the defendant had established his residence).

This ruling is of crucial importance. The Cassation Court explicitly acknowledges the difficulty, if not the impossibility, of applying Article 8 of the Code of Criminal Procedure when it is not possible to identify the