Stalking may manifest through insistent messages, stakeouts, phone calls, social media monitoring, or contacts directed at people close to you. If you are experiencing these behaviors, you may wonder when the distress becomes an offense, whether it is necessary to file a complaint, and how to protect yourself without losing useful evidence. If instead you are accused, you might wonder whether a conflictual relationship or contacts stemming from unresolved issues are truly sufficient to speak of persecutory acts.
The distinction is not merely formal. I will explain the conditions required by the crime of stalking, what matters in digital communications, the effects of a complaint and a police commissioner's warning, and how the positions of the victim and the suspect differ. In Milan, the same national criminal rules apply: what guides the response is the sequence of facts, their content, and the concrete consequences produced in the life of the person involved.
When messages and behaviors become persecutory acts
Stalking requires repeated behavior. Article 612-bis of the Criminal Code concerns anyone who threatens or harasses another person through repeated conduct, causing at least one of the events indicated by the law: a persistent and severe state of anxiety or fear, a well-founded fear for one's own safety or that of a family member or a person linked by an emotional bond, or a change in lifestyle habits. Repetition alone is not enough: one of these effects must also be present.
Physical violence is not necessary. Continuous calls, shadowing, presences outside the home, offensive or intimidating messages, new profiles created after being blocked, and requests for information addressed to friends can assume criminal relevance. The point is not the means used, but the pressure that the conduct exerts and its ability to concretely affect the peace of mind, freedom of movement, or habits of the victim.
An isolated incident does not constitute stalking on its own. A single threat, a severely offensive message, or an unwanted encounter may still have relevance depending on their content, but they do not satisfy the requirement of reiteration provided for persecutory acts. Conversely, even seemingly modest conduct, if repeated and inserted into a sequence of control or intimidation, can take on a different meaning.
The basic prison sentence ranges from one year to six years and six months. This range was already established by Law no. 69 of 2019. With effect from December 17, 2025, Law no. 181 of December 2, 2025 introduced an increase from one-third to two-thirds if the act is committed as an act of hatred, discrimination, bullying, control, possession, or domination because of being a woman, or in relation to the refusal to establish or maintain an emotional relationship or as a limitation of individual freedoms. The context must demonstrate the presence of this aggravating circumstance, which does not derive automatically from the end of a relationship. Law no. 181 of December 2, 2025
The content of communications matters more than their number
A chat must be read as a whole. The number of messages alone does not provide an answer. What matters are the words used, the frequency, the time slots, the responses received, requests to stop contacts, and any transition to other channels. A complete conversation may show threats and insistence, but it can also clarify that some communications were reciprocal, circumscribed, and referred to a concrete need.
Social media is not a space without consequences. Comments, mentions, repeated sending of contact requests, allusive publications, and indirect contacts through acquaintances can enter into the reconstruction of the facts. Not every public content is addressed to the victim, and not every request to a third party proves harassment. It becomes decisive to establish whether the message is recognizable, insistent, and connected to conduct that generates fear or modifies habits.
The prior relationship may aggravate the offense, but it does not replace proof. Article 612-bis increases the penalty when the act is committed by a spouse, even if separated or divorced, or by a person who is or has been emotionally linked to the victim; the increase is also provided for the use of IT or telematic tools. This does not transform every contact after separation into stalking. Necessary, clear, and respectful communication must be distinguished from conduct used to control, intimidate, or humiliate.
Complaint for stalking: deadline, content, and effects
As a rule, stalking requires a complaint by the victim. The complaint is the act by which one expresses the will for the author of the fact to be prosecuted criminally; it does not coincide with the simple account of distress. For Article 612-bis, the deadline is six months. Since the conduct may continue over time, the chronology must indicate dates, episodes, and consequences with precision, without relying on generic or approximate reconstructions.
Prosecution of office is an important exception. A complaint is not required if the act is committed against a minor or a person with a disability indicated by the rule, or if it is connected to a crime prosecutable of office. Proceedings also proceed of office if the persecutory acts are committed by a person already warned by the police commissioner. These situations affect the initiation of proceedings and cannot be deduced solely from the title given to the report.
The complaint cannot be withdrawn informally. For the crime of stalking, remission can only take place in judicial proceedings. Furthermore, when the acts are carried out through repeated threats in the ways provided for by Article 612, second paragraph, the complaint is irrevocable. A private clarification, the resumption of relations, or an agreement between the people involved do not therefore produce, on their own, the effect of closing the proceedings.
Collecting does not mean altering. Messages, emails, call logs, photographs, medical reports, and names of persons informed of the facts can be useful if kept in their original form. It is advisable to note an essential chronology and separate what was seen or received directly from what was reported by others. Cuts, modifications, and selections devoid of context risk making it more difficult to understand the facts rather than clarifying them.
The police commissioner's warning before the complaint
The warning is a preventive tool. Until a complaint for persecutory acts has been filed, the victim can report the facts to the public security authority and ask the police commissioner to warn the author of the conduct. The police commissioner can acquire information and hear informed persons; if they consider the request well-founded, they orally warn the subject and draw up a report.
It does not equate to a conviction. The warning does not definitively ascertain criminal liability and does not replace the trial. However, it has significant consequences: if the subject already warned subsequently commits persecutory acts, the penalty is increased and proceedings are initiated of office, even if the victim of the subsequent acts is different from the one for whom the previous measure was adopted. Article 8 of Decree-Law no. 11 of February 23, 2009
The choice between warning and complaint is not interchangeable. The warning can be considered when seeking preventive intervention and the complaint has not yet been filed. If the conduct already appears serious, if there are threats, or if the person fears imminent consequences, it is not useful to reduce the situation to a simple request for mediation. The protection to be activated depends on the reported facts and the level of risk they show.
Restraining order and communications during the proceedings
The complaint does not automatically create a contact ban. A restraining order is a precautionary measure decided by the judge when the conditions set out by the code of criminal procedure are met. It does not descend automatically from the victim's report, but requires a decision based on the gathered elements and protection needs in the proceedings.
The prescriptions must be respected word for word. Article 282-ter of the code of criminal procedure allows the judge to prohibit approaching places habitually frequented by the victim or to impose a distance of not less than five hundred meters. The measure can be extended, when necessary, to places frequented by family members, cohabitants, or persons emotionally linked to the victim and can prohibit communications by any means. Article 282-ter of the code of criminal procedure
Work and housing do not authorize autonomous derogations. If one of the protected places must be frequented for work reasons or housing needs, it is up to the judge to establish methods and limitations. The person subject to the measure cannot decide alone how to meet or contact the protected person. Even a message presented as clarification, or contact through third parties, may conflict with the content of the order.
The measure may include technical controls. The restraining order can be accompanied by the control methods provided by law. The refusal of consent requested for such methods or the technical or operational impossibility of applying them can entail further measures, even more serious ones. For this reason, it is not enough to know that a ban exists: one must understand the distance, places, people, and communication channels indicated in the measure.
Defense of the victim and the suspect
For the victim, precision means more understandable protection. It is not sufficient to state that someone "is stalking." It is necessary to describe what happened, by what means, on what date, in front of whom, and with what concrete consequence. Changing routes, giving up habitual places, modifying schedules, or fearing for a close person are different elements and must be linked to the conduct that determined them.
For the suspect, defending oneself does not mean replying immediately. An impulsive response can be interpreted as a new attempt at pressure, especially if the other person has asked to stop contacts or if a warning or judicial measure has already intervened. The defense may require reconstructing complete communications, distinguishing necessary contacts from contested ones, and verifying whether the event required by Article 612-bis is truly present.
The same chronology serves to read opposite positions. With my staff, I can help you sort out the facts without turning a personal conflict into an automatic label and without minimizing conduct that has affected a person's freedom. For those who report, this helps to represent the facts clearly; for those who are investigated, it allows them to exercise the right of defense in the proper venues, without adding further misunderstandings.
Frequently asked questions
Can I file a complaint if I do not have all the evidence?
Yes, you can state the facts you know. You do not need to arrive with a perfect reconstruction, but the date, content of contacts, and consequences suffered help make the sequence of episodes clear. Keep devices and communications in their original form, indicate any persons informed of the facts, and do not modify messages or files to make them more convincing.
Does blocking on social media automatically make every new contact stalking?
No, blocking is an element but is not enough on its own. It can demonstrate that you do not wish to be contacted, especially if preceded or accompanied by an explicit request to cease communications. The offense still requires repeated conduct of threat or harassment and a severe state of anxiety or fear, a well-founded fear for safety, or a change in lifestyle habits.
Can I request the police commissioner's warning after filing a complaint?
No, the warning presupposes that the complaint has not been filed. Article 8 of Decree-Law no. 11 of 2009 configures it as a preventive intervention before starting the choice to complain for persecutory acts. After the complaint, protection continues in the criminal proceedings and any precautionary measures depend on a judge's decision.
Does a restraining order always prevent every message?
It depends on the wording of the order. The judge can impose a distance from places or from the victim and can prohibit communications through any means. You must read carefully the protected persons, places, distance, and channels indicated in the measure. A work, housing, or family organization requirement does not allow for autonomously establishing a derogation.
If I am under investigation, can I contact the victim to clarify?
It is a choice that can worsen the situation. A message intended as clarification can be perceived as further pressure and become a new element to evaluate. The risk increases if there has been a request not to be contacted, a warning, or a precautionary measure. I can help you set up the defense in the appropriate venues without fueling further disputes.
A comparison on concrete facts
The first requirement is to understand what really happened. If you are facing a stalking situation in Milan, as a victim or as a suspect, you can contact me to frame the episodes, any acts already received, and the choices that the law allows, starting from a faithful and complete reconstruction of the facts.