Juvenile Stalking: The Court of Cassation Upholds the Legality of the Aggravating Circumstance for Juvenile Perpetrators (Judgment No. 25507/2025)

The Court of Cassation, with Judgment No. 25507 filed on July 10, 2025, addressed a crucial issue for juvenile criminal law and the protection of victims of persecutory acts. The ruling expressed an opinion on the constitutionality of the aggravating circumstance provided for by Article 612-bis, paragraph 3, of the Criminal Code, when the crime of stalking is committed by a minor against another minor. This decision reiterates the legal system's intent to protect the most vulnerable individuals without compromising the perpetrator's accountability.

The Constitutional Question on the Aggravating Circumstance

The crime of persecutory acts (stalking), under Article 612-bis of the Criminal Code, provides for an increased penalty if committed against a minor (paragraph 3). The question raised aimed to determine whether this aggravating circumstance was constitutionally legitimate even when the perpetrator of the crime was a minor. The appellants alleged a violation of Articles 3 (equality) and 27 (rehabilitative function of punishment) of the Constitution, arguing that the incomplete maturity of the juvenile offender should exclude the aggravating circumstance.

The question of the constitutionality of Article 612-bis, paragraph 3, of the Criminal Code, in relation to Articles 3 and 27 of the Constitution, insofar as it provides for an increased penalty for the crime of persecutory acts committed against a minor, even when the active subject of the crime is a minor, is manifestly unfounded. (In its reasoning, the Court stated that the offender's incomplete maturity is adequately considered in the provisions of Articles 97 and 98 of the Criminal Code concerning the imputability of minors and the sanctioning treatment, and that the reference to the special cause for exclusion of punishability provided for by Article 609-quater of the Criminal Code for a minor who has engaged in sexual acts with a minor over thirteen years of age is irrelevant as a "tertium comparationis," as this situation is not comparable to those referred to in Article 612-bis of the Criminal Code).

The Supreme Court's Reasoning

The Court of Cassation, in its ruling by President E.V.S. Scarlini and rapporteur A. Guardiano, declared the question manifestly unfounded, basing its decision on two main arguments:

• Imputability and Juvenile Treatment: The "incomplete maturity of the offender" who is a minor is already regulated by Articles 97 and 98 of the Criminal Code, which govern imputability (not under 14 years of age; reduced penalty between 14 and 18, subject to an assessment of capacity). This system allows the juvenile judge to personalize accountability and the sanctioning treatment, which is oriented towards rehabilitation.
• Irrelevance of the "Tertium Comparationis": The reference to Article 609-quater of the Criminal Code (sexual acts with a thirteen-year-old minor) was deemed "irrelevant." The dynamics of sexual offenses between minors are distinct from the pervasive and harmful nature of persecutory acts that infringe upon individual liberty. Stalking, even between minors, is characterized by the unilateral nature of the conduct and the severe psychological impact on the victim, making the two scenarios incomparable.

In summary, the Court of Cassation reiterated that the legal system effectively balances the protection of minor victims with the specificities of the juvenile justice system. The application of the aggravating circumstance protects minors from insidious conduct without precluding a personalized assessment of the responsibility of the minor perpetrator.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 25507/2025 of the Court of Cassation is a landmark decision on persecutory acts committed by minors. By confirming the legality of the aggravating circumstance under Article 612-bis, paragraph 3, of the Criminal Code, the Supreme Court has sent a clear message: the protection of minors who are victims of stalking is a priority. Criminal liability, despite the specificities related to age and the rehabilitative process, fully applies even to young perpetrators of such offenses. This decision strengthens the legal framework for protecting the most vulnerable and underscores the importance of a balanced approach.