Crime of Molestation under Art. 660 c.p. and the Commencement of the Statute of Limitations: The Clarification of the Supreme Court n. 12703/2025
With the ruling filed on April 2, 2025 (judgment no. 12703/2025), the First Criminal Section of the Supreme Court of Cassation revisits the delicate issue of the dies a quo for the statute of limitations in the context of the crime of molestation or disturbance of persons, as regulated by Art. 660 of the Italian Criminal Code (c.p.). The decision, confirming the framework established by the Court of Appeal of Trieste, reiterates that the repetition of conduct can transform an instantaneous offense into a habitual crime, with decisive effects on the statute of limitations.
The Regulatory Framework and Precedents
Art. 660 c.p. punishes "whoever, in a public place or a place open to the public, or by means of telephone, causes molestation or disturbance to someone". As a rule, this is an instantaneous crime: its commission coincides with the single act of molestation. However, case law – already with judgments no. 17787/2008 and no. 19631/2019 – had recognized the possibility that, in practice, a plurality of acts could constitute a habitual crime.
- Instantaneous crime: commission with a single act, statute of limitations from the date of the act;
- Habitual crime: prolonged commission, statute of limitations from the last behavior constituting the offense;
- Incompatibility with the institution of continuing offenses under Art. 81 c.p., as habitual conduct absorbs the plurality of acts.
The Ruling and its Interpretation
The crime of molestation or disturbance of persons, although not necessarily habitual in nature, and therefore capable of being completed even with a single action that produces the effects indicated by Art. 660 of the Criminal Code, can in practice assume such a form, incompatible with continuing offenses, when it is precisely the repetition of conduct that creates disturbance or molestation, with the consequence that, in such cases, for the purpose of the statute of limitations, the term begins to run from the commission of the last unlawful act.
The Court clarifies that the qualifying element of habituality is not legally predetermined but materializes if the molestation arises precisely from the repetition of the actions. In such cases:
1) the unity of the offense excludes continuing offenses; 2) the moment of commission is shifted forward to the last conduct; 3) the statute of limitations runs from this last act, potentially extending the period of prosecution.
Practical Implications for Defense Counsel and Injured Parties
For those assisting the defendant, the decision implies the need to carefully evaluate the defense strategy: invoking the statute of limitations will be more complex if the conduct has been prolonged. Conversely, for the injured party, the time window within which to file a complaint and initiate civil action is expanded.
From a probative standpoint, the defense must:
- Analyze the frequency of the episodes, demonstrating their autonomy to avoid habitual conduct;
- Highlight any significant temporal interruptions;
- Verify the application of Articles 157 et seq. c.p. in relation to interrupting acts.
The decision is perfectly in line with established case law, but strengthens its operational scope, providing clear criteria for the judge in qualifying the conduct.
Conclusions
Judgment no. 12703/2025 represents a further step in the interpretation of Art. 660 c.p.: the Supreme Court reaffirms that the qualification as a habitual crime depends on the concrete repetition of conduct and has a decisive impact on the statute of limitations, which runs only from the last act. The principle protects the effectiveness of the punitive response in cases of prolonged molestation, but requires defense counsel to conduct a detailed analysis of the factual circumstances to assess the possibility of invoking the statute of limitations. For citizens, finally, the message is clear: the repetition of molesting behavior prolongs the period of prosecution and can render the hope of acquittal due to the passage of time vain.
