Failure to protect following domestic violence or stalking raises a difficult but concrete question: if the authorities were warned of a risk, can the State be held liable for damages that were not prevented? I can help you distinguish between a painful situation, where protection failed to prevent a new incident, and an omission that may have legal significance and form the basis of a compensation claim.

A report alone is not enough. What matters is the information received by the authorities, the time they received it, the powers they held, and the link between the contested lack of intervention and the subsequent damage. We will also see why urgent protection, proceedings against the perpetrator of the violence, and any claim against the State are different paths that must not be confused.

The claim for damages arises from an identifiable omission

Damage does not prove fault on its own. A new incident of violence, even a very serious one, does not automatically make the State liable. To claim compensation, it is necessary to identify conduct or a failure to act attributable to a public authority and explain which right was infringed. Article 28 of the Constitution establishes that civil liability for acts committed in violation of rights extends to the State and public bodies: you can read the text of Article 28 of the Constitution.

A recognizable danger is central. A generic report is not equivalent to threatening messages delivered to offices, previous assaults, emergency calls, violations of orders, or communications describing precise places, times, and conduct. This data helps to understand whether the authority had concrete elements to grasp the risk and whether the response adopted, or lack thereof, was adequate to what was already known.

A causal link is required. The claim must connect the omission to the damage with a concrete reconstruction. It is not sufficient to observe that the violence repeated itself after a report. It must be clarified why a due or expected activity, if carried out in time, could have affected the victim's exposure to risk. The offender's conduct remains the immediately harmful act; potential public liability requires an independent causal connection.

Circumstances change the response. The case where authorities receive notice of current threats and repeated violations is different from the case where the subsequent incident depends on facts never communicated or which only emerged afterwards. The reconstruction is not intended to assign blame to the victim: it serves to establish what information was actually available and what protection could have been activated at that time.

Protective measures are not all triggered by reporting

A report can trigger different pathways. There is no single protective measure valid for every situation. Criminal proceedings can lead to requests and precautionary measures; in the context of domestic violence, forms of protection linked to risk assessment by public safety authorities may also operate. The presence of a report is important, but it does not replace the conditions required for each intervention.

Dynamic surveillance has specific prerequisites. Law no. 168 of 2023 provides that the police force proceeding with specific acts committed in the context of domestic violence must inform the prefect of the situation when initial investigations reveal concrete and relevant elements of a risk of repetition. The prefect can then adopt dynamic surveillance measures to protect the injured party. This provision concerns its precise scope and does not allow the assertion that every stalking report automatically entails the same intervention: consult Law no. 168 of 2023 on domestic and gender-based violence.

Restraining orders require a formal ruling. Article 282-ter of the Code of Criminal Procedure governs a precautionary measure that can prohibit a suspect or defendant from approaching places frequented by the injured party or impose a specified distance, in any case not less than one thousand meters in the cases provided for by the rule. The judge may also prohibit communications by any means. The measure does not derive mechanically from the report: a decision based on statutory precautionary prerequisites is necessary. The text of Article 282-ter c.p.p. clarifies the content and limits of the prohibition.

Subsequent violations matter. Messages, stalking, approaches near the home or workplace, contacts through third parties, and other conduct occurring after a report or after a measure can modify the risk assessment. This is why it is important that new facts reach the competent authorities in a traceable manner. An initially adequate measure may indeed require review if different or more serious elements emerge.

Who failed to intervene changes the applicable regime

There is no single State liability. The dispute may concern the activity of the police forces, an administrative office, or the exercise of judicial functions. This distinction is not merely formal: it changes how the omission is identified, the rules to be applied, and the claim to be brought. Before discussing compensation, police activities must therefore be precisely separated from those of the public prosecutor or the judge.

Judicial acts follow a special regime. When the damage is linked to an act, measure, or conduct performed in the exercise of judicial functions, the reference is Law no. 117 of April 13, 1988, dedicated to compensation for damages caused in the exercise of judicial functions and the civil liability of magistrates. The compensation claim is addressed to the State, according to the prerequisites and procedures provided by that special discipline: here you can find the text of Law no. 117 of 1988.

Disagreement is not sufficient. Not every investigative or judicial choice that appears insufficient after an assault gives rise to compensation. A claim cannot be based solely on the idea that a stricter measure should have been adopted. It is necessary to indicate what relevant conduct is contested, which rule or duty is at stake, and why the facts available at the time would have required a different response.

Time limits are not all the same. Claims against the State do not necessarily follow the same path and time limits as actions against the perpetrator. In particular, liability for judicial activity has its own rules. Therefore, it is not advisable to await the outcome of every other initiative assuming that the compensation claim can be brought without consequences regarding time limits: the type of contested omission must be carefully qualified from the beginning.

Evidence is built on the sequence of events

Chronology is the primary evidence. Dates of reports, additions, calls, patrol visits, communications sent, hearings, measures, notifications, and new incidents must be ordered in their actual sequence. A clear chronology makes it possible to distinguish what the authority could know before the event from what only emerged afterwards. Without this distinction, the link between omission and damage easily remains generic.

Reports must be recognizable. Copies of reports and complaints, filing receipts, intervention records, emails, or logged communications can show not only that the victim had asked for help, but also what they had reported. A threatening message kept on a phone can prove the offender's conduct; to attribute significance to a possible public omission, it must also be demonstrated whether and when that message was brought to the attention of the offices.

Digital evidence must be contextualized. Isolated screenshots, undated photographs, or incomplete chat excerpts can leave doubts about the author, time, and meaning of the communication. It is more useful to preserve the conversation in its context, sender and recipient information, temporal data, and any previous or subsequent messages. The same caution applies to call logs, online content, and locations.

Damage has distinct items. Injuries, medical expenses, property damage, loss of profits, relocation costs, and personal suffering are not a single item. Each consequence must be linked to the event and documented in the appropriate manner. The claim against the State does not automatically replace the one against the perpetrator of the violence: it can only concern damages attributable, according to the proposed reconstruction, also to the contested failure to protect.

Paths to consider after a failure of protection

Safety comes before compensation. If danger is present or imminent, a claim for damages is not the tool to stop it. The priority is to contact emergency services and law enforcement, clearly representing recent episodes, threats, the presence of weapons, violations of any prohibitions, and places where the person is exposed. The compensation claim concerns a subsequent assessment and does not replace urgent intervention.

Action against the perpetrator remains distinct. Criminal proceedings establish any crime and the liability of the suspect or defendant. The injured party can evaluate, in the times and ways provided, the claim for compensation against the perpetrator of the act. Any action against the State instead has a different object: it does not ask the State to take the place of the perpetrator, but challenges its own legally relevant conduct or omission.

A formal complaint does not automatically produce damages. Reporting dysfunctions to an office can have an important meaning, but it is not equivalent to obtaining a finding of civil liability, nor does it necessarily interrupt the time limits applicable to a compensation claim. Similarly, a conviction of the perpetrator can be very relevant to prove the violence, but does not prove on its own that a public authority failed to carry out a due intervention.

A few orderly documents are enough. To frame a possible request, an essential timeline, reports and additions, any measures issued, evidence of their violations, and documents on the damage are useful. With my staff, we can sort this material to distinguish facts already known to the authorities from subsequent facts. The starting point is not to reconstruct every detail, but to understand what concrete omission is being alleged.

Frequently asked questions

Can I claim compensation from the State simply because I had already reported the facts?

No, reporting is not enough. You must be able to point to a specific behavior or omission by the authority, prove that the risk or relevant facts were recognizable, and link that failure to the damage suffered. Reporting, formal complaints, and additions are often decisive evidence, but they do not replace the other requirements of civil liability.

Does a protective measure that was not adopted automatically make the State liable?

No, not automatically. Precautionary and surveillance measures presuppose evaluations and conditions provided by law. For a claim for damages, it is necessary to clarify which measure is assumed to be omitted, what elements of danger were available, and why that lack of intervention contributed concretely to the alleged damage.

Can I claim damages directly from the magistrate?

A claim concerning the exercise of judicial functions is generally brought against the State. Law No. 117 of 1988 provides an exception: where the magistrate’s conduct in the exercise of those functions constitutes a criminal offence, Article 13 permits a claim directly against the magistrate as well, under the ordinary rules. Mere disagreement with a decision or assessment does not establish liability for damages.

Does joining as a civil party against the perpetrator apply against the State as well?

No, they are different claims. The civil party normally aims to obtain compensation from the author of the crime or from those civilly liable for it. A request for failure to protect instead challenges independent conduct of the public authority and requires its own legal basis, a different reconstruction of the facts, and specific evidence.

Which documents should I keep to assess a failure-to-protect claim?

Keep traceable evidence. Useful items include reports, receipts, records, communications sent to authorities, measures, evidence of violations, messages in their context, and documents relating to harmful consequences. The date and proof of receipt of reports are often essential to understand what the authority knew before the event.

Evaluating a compensation claim in Milan

The decisive question is concrete. It is not a matter of establishing in the abstract whether protection was insufficient, but of understanding whether there are documentable facts that allow challenging a precise omission by the State. The distinction between police activity, judicial measures, communications received, and resulting damages already guides the choice of the path to follow.

Timely discussion helps. If you wish to evaluate a compensation claim for failure to protect in Milan, you can contact me bringing an essential timeline and the main documents available. Together with my staff, we can frame the nature of the proposed omission, without confusing protection against the perpetrator with potential State liability.