Workplace mobbing does not automatically become a crime simply because a person suffers repeated humiliations, isolation, or pressure. The label given to the situation is not enough: in criminal proceedings, it is necessary to understand what facts occurred, who committed them, with what frequency, and what concrete consequence they produced.
I want to help you distinguish situations in which harassment may assume criminal relevance from those that remain primarily on the employment, civil, or disciplinary level. We will see why mistreatment is an exceptional hypothesis in employment relationships, when personal injuries, threats, private violence, or stalking may come into play, and which elements are useful not to lose sight of.
Mobbing is not an autonomous crime
The criminal code does not provide for an offense called "mobbing". The word describes a possible set of hostile behaviors in the employment relationship, but the criminal judge must trace individual facts back to a specific type of crime. For this reason, a series of acts can be very serious on the level of the employment relationship without constituting, for that reason alone, a crime.
The Court of Cassation has expressly examined the issue of the criminal relevance of mobbing and recalls that there is no incrimination specifically constructed for this phenomenon. The correct question, therefore, is not only whether there was mobbing, but whether there were conducts that correspond to the elements required by a criminal rule. You can read the framework in the criminal review by the Court of Cassation on workplace mobbing.
The concrete fact counts, not the label. An unfair reprimand, a questionable transfer, exclusion from a meeting, or demotion can have significant consequences in the employment relationship. To speak of a crime, however, further requirements are needed: for example, a threat of unfair harm, coercion obtained through violence or threats, illness caused to the person, or repeated persecutory conducts with the effects provided by law.
When harassment can constitute mistreatment
Mistreatment does not coincide with every abuse of power at work. Article 572 of the criminal code concerns family members, cohabitants, and also persons subject to the authority of others or entrusted for certain reasons, including those connected to the exercise of a profession or art. The rule provides for a habitual crime: not an isolated episode, but a plurality of conducts that build a harassing treatment. The current text of the article is reported in Law no. 181 of 2025 on Normattiva.
In employment relationships, however, the application of Article 572 requires a particularly important limit. The normal corporate hierarchy is not sufficient. The Court of Cassation links this hypothesis to a quasi-family relationship: a very close and stable relationship, characterized by common living habits, reliance, trust, and subjugation of the weaker person towards those occupying a position of supremacy.
This distinction avoids a frequent misunderstanding. A large corporate reality, with departments, multiple levels of responsibility, and impersonal relationships, does not become a family environment simply because a superior exerts improper pressure on an employee. Conversely, a very restricted and personal work context may require checking the nature of the relationship and the habitual modalities of the conducts with greater attention.
The repetition must form a unitary treatment
Connected behaviors are needed, not just unpleasant ones. Humiliations in front of colleagues, insults, degrading impositions, isolation, and oppressive control can take on a different meaning if they fit into a coherent and continuous sequence. It is not necessary for every fact to be identical to the previous one, but the plurality of episodes must describe a treatment that is overall detrimental to human dignity.
If the requirement of the quasi-family relationship is missing, Article 572 may not be applicable. This does not close the criminal issue: the same conduct may need to be evaluated, without forcing, in light of other crimes. It is precisely here that it becomes essential to separate the judgment on the employment relationship from the ascertainment of individual criminally relevant facts.
Personal injury, threats, private violence, and stalking
Every possible crime has its own requirements. It is not correct to generically sum up words like stalking, injury, and mistreatment to describe a difficult working situation. Instead, it is necessary to identify what was done and what legally relevant effect resulted from it.
Personal injury and compromised health
Psychological suffering can have criminal relevance only if it constitutes an injury. Article 582 of the criminal code punishes anyone who causes an injury from which a physical or mental illness derives. Therefore, it is not enough to state that one felt stressed, mortified, or disturbed: it is necessary to verify whether an illness exists and whether it can be causally linked to the contested conducts. The regulatory reference is reported in Legislative Decree no. 150 of 2022 on Normattiva.
Health documentation can be important, but it does not replace the proof of work facts. Diagnosis and cause are not the same thing. A certificate attests to a state of health; the link with certain conducts requires considering chronology, the content of the episodes, other possible factors, and available evidence. A criminal dispute cannot be based solely on the temporal succession between a conflict and the onset of the disorder.
Threat and coercion
Threatening does not simply mean criticizing. Article 612 concerns the prospect of unfair harm; a harsh phrase may fall within dissent or the exercise of organizational power, while an intimidating announcement of illegitimate retaliation requires a different evaluation. Article 610, instead, concerns anyone who compels another person, through violence or threats, to do, tolerate, or omit something.
At work, the difference is concrete. Telling an employee that they must comply with a contractual obligation does not equate to committing private violence. The decisive point is the means used and what is imposed. Coercion obtained through threats or violence can assume criminal relevance, not the mere existence of a company directive, even when this is questionable or challengeable in another venue.
Stalking in the workplace context
Stalking requires reiterated conducts and a specific effect. Article 612-bis punishes repeated threats or harassment that cause a lasting and serious state of anxiety or fear, a well-founded fear for safety, or compel the person to change their lifestyle habits. It is not necessary for the relationship between the offender and the injured party to be affective: the workplace context can also be relevant, but all the elements of the rule must be proven.
The change of habits must not be understood in an abstract way. It must be a consequence of the conducts. For example, avoiding places or times to escape harassment, changing routes, or giving up normal activities due to a well-founded fear can be relevant. Article 612-bis normally provides for the complaint of the injured party and sets a six-month deadline to propose it; however, there are hypotheses of ex officio proceedability indicated by the provision itself. For this reason, it is prudent not to wait to perfectly reconstruct every detail before inquiring about protection methods. The current text is available in the rule reporting Article 612-bis of the criminal code.
Facts that change the legal framework
The temporal sequence is often decisive. It is necessary to distinguish a single episode from a series of behaviors, indicate when they began and whether they continued after complaints, absences, or changes in duties. Repetition can be central for mistreatment and stalking, while a single fact can be relevant for threats, private violence, or injury.
The content of communications matters more than their quantity. Emails, chats, messages, service orders, and summons can clarify whether there was professional criticism, a disciplinary dispute, a legitimate request, or an intimidating and degrading expression. It is useful to keep messages in their context, with dates and recipients, without modifying them or extracting phrases that change their meaning.
External evidence can confirm or refute the account. Present persons, calendars, shifts, access badges, communications sent to other offices, and health certifications can be relevant for different aspects. There is no single document that transforms an event into mobbing or a crime on its own: every element serves to verify a precise fact, its repetition, its author, or the effect produced.
Paths to consider without confusing objectives
Criminal protection does not replace employment protection. A possible report or complaint concerns the ascertainment of a crime and the personal responsibility of the person who committed it. It does not automatically determine reinstatement, change of duties, compensation, or the cessation of an organizational choice: these results may require different initiatives based on different rules.
If threats, violence, insistent harassment, or current danger emerge, personal protection comes before legal qualification. It is advisable to contact the competent authorities without delay and explain the facts in a chronological manner, indicating any sources of evidence. In cases where a complaint is evaluated, time can be relevant; for stalking, the law expressly indicates the six-month deadline.
When there is no immediate danger, it is useful to separate the questions: which conducts must cease, what evidence documents them, whether there is a health injury, whether the relationship truly presents quasi-family characters, and which remedy responds to the result you seek. Not all incorrect conducts require the same tool. An orderly reconstruction avoids both underestimating serious facts and attributing a crime to episodes that must be addressed in another venue.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is mobbing always a crime?
No. Mobbing is not an autonomous figure of crime. Harassment can have employment, civil, or disciplinary relevance and, only when specific requirements recur, constitute crimes such as mistreatment, injury, threat, private violence, or stalking. Qualification depends on concrete facts and the effects required by law.
Can I report my manager for mistreatment?
It is possible only if precise conditions are met. At work, Article 572 requires a quasi-family situation, not a simple hierarchical relationship. It is necessary to ascertain an intense and stable personal relationship, with reliance and subjugation, in addition to habitual harassing treatment. In an ordinary corporate organization, this requirement may be missing.
Can an anxiety disorder be a personal injury?
It can be if it constitutes a physical or mental illness. Not every suffering or discomfort reaches this threshold. Furthermore, it is necessary to prove the link between the health condition and the conducts attributed to a person. Health certification is important, but it must be read together with chronology and other available elements.
Can work emails and chats serve as evidence?
Yes, if they document a relevant fact. They can show the content of requests, insults, or threats, their repetition, and recipients. It is preferable to keep them in full, with date and context, without modifications. A single message rarely resolves everything: it takes value together with other evidence of the story.
How much time do I have to file a complaint for stalking?
For Article 612-bis, the deadline is six months. The start date and proceedability may require attention, especially when conducts continue over time or hypotheses for ex officio proceedings occur. It is not advisable to wait for the situation to worsen: you can contact me to clarify which protection is compatible with the facts and timing of your case.
Institutional References
To delve deeper into the prerequisites of mistreatment and stalking, the main references used in this guide are Article 572 and Article 612-bis of the criminal code reported by Normattiva, the provisions on personal injury, private violence, and threats in Legislative Decree no. 150 of 2022, and the review by the Court of Cassation on the limits of Article 572 in workplace mobbing.