Cassazione n. 11209/2024: Concurrence between domestic abuse and stalking after the end of cohabitation
With ruling no. 11209 of November 27, 2024 (filed March 20, 2025), the Court of Cassation revisits the often blurred line between the crime of domestic abuse and that of stalking, establishing when the two offenses can coexist. The case concerns F. C., accused of conduct towards her former partner and minor children: conduct that persisted during their life together and continued, in different ways, even after the interruption of cohabitation.
The Case Before the Supreme Court
The Court of Appeal of Caltanissetta had found F. C. guilty of domestic abuse until the date of the dissolution of the "more uxorio" cohabitation and, for the subsequent period, of the aggravated crime of stalking. The defense invoked the absorption of stalking conduct into domestic abuse, given the ongoing shared parenthood. The Cassation Court, on the contrary, confirmed the dual charge, annulling the lower court's ruling in part without referral on ancillary matters.
The Relevant Legal Framework
- Article 572 of the Italian Criminal Code (c.p.): Punishes those who abuse a family member or cohabitant, protecting the physical and moral integrity of the domestic unit.
- Article 612-bis of the Italian Criminal Code (c.p.): Sanctions stalking acts that cause the victim a persistent state of anxiety or fear, with an aggravating circumstance if committed by a person linked by an affective relationship.
In matters concerning the relationship between the crime of domestic abuse and that of stalking, the concurrence of the former with the aggravated form of the latter is conceivable in the presence of behaviors that, arising within a family unit, go beyond the scope of domestic abuse due to the subsequent cessation of the family and affective bond or, in any case, its temporal relevance, despite persistent shared parenthood.
The maxim, in addition to crystallizing the outcome of the specific case, offers a general criterion: the cessation of cohabitation marks the temporal limit beyond which new conduct, even if inspired by the same prevaricating intent, transcends domestic abuse and gives rise to stalking.
The Court's Reasoning
The Supreme Court bases its decision on three key points:
- Interruption of the affective bond: With de facto separation, the family environment that justifies Article 572 c.p. ceases to exist.
- Persistent autonomous offensiveness: Acts after cohabitation create a new and different disturbance in the victim's life, relevant under Article 612-bis c.p.
- Irrelevance of shared parenthood: The shared care of children does not in itself re-establish the family context necessary for the application of Article 572, nor does it exclude the enhanced protection provided by aggravated stalking.
From a systematic perspective, the Court adheres to the consistent case law (nos. 39532/2021; 15883/2022) and departs from the dissenting case law (no. 33882/2014), favoring a graduated protection of the victim: first within the family, then, after cohabitation has ceased, within interpersonal relationships.
Practical Implications for Defense and Victims
The ruling is of great utility for legal professionals:
- The defense strategy must verify the exact date of the interruption of cohabitation, a watershed element between the two crimes.
- The victim can independently assert the crime of stalking for acts subsequent to the separation, thus obtaining more targeted precautionary and compensatory measures.
- Public Prosecutors must structure the indictment in a dual manner, avoiding generic charges that would be susceptible to declarations of nullity.
Conclusions
Ruling no. 11209/2024 follows a line of jurisprudence aimed at ensuring continuous protection for victims of domestic violence even after the end of the relationship. By establishing that the cessation of cohabitation gives rise to an independent crime of stalking, the Court of Cassation offers a clear interpretative direction, strengthening the effectiveness of criminal laws and providing lawyers with a certain criterion for outlining defense lines and protection strategies. However, the need to assess on a case-by-case basis the existence of that "new" climate of oppression that characterizes stalking remains, avoiding double punishment but without leaving gray areas in the protection of vulnerable individuals.
