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 centre 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 Criminal Code punishes anyone who, through repeated conduct, threatens or molests in a manner that causes a severe state of anxiety, a well-founded fear for personal safety, or forces the victim to alter their habits. This offence is "habitual," requiring a plurality of actions that, taken together, create a pattern of persecution. Prosecutability for stalking is subject to a complaint by the offended person, a fundamental act that initiates criminal proceedings.

The crime of persecutory acts is an "improper habitual offence," meaning that if the repetition of conduct also concerns actions carried out after the complaint has been filed, the condition for prosecution extends to these latter actions, which, considered together with the previous ones, 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 subsequent conduct. The condition for prosecution automatically extends to these latter actions. All acts, both before and after the complaint, are considered collectively as part of a single persecutory conduct, constituting the objective element of the crime. This interpretation consolidates protection for victims, in line with previous rulings (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 drafted by A. F., 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 orientation 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 activates an extended protection mechanism, and the persistence of conduct does not render the complaint ineffective but 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 an improper habitual offence and the extension of prosecutability, the Court ensures that the act of reporting has full effectiveness 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.