Condominium stalking: the Court of Cassation sets out the conditions

There are various forms of stalking, and the Court of Cassation defines a new figure, that of condominium stalking. In these "domestic" settings, cases of disturbance are increasingly numerous. The cases are in fact very varied: they range from following a condominium owner, to opening personal post, to throwing dust, cigarette ends or crumbs onto his or her balcony, with the intention of always doing so as part of a unitary and premeditated persecutory plan.

The existence of the so-called offence of condominium stalking was established by the Court of Cassation in judgment no. 26878 of 30 June 2016 (but in the past there was also the judgment of 26 September 2013, no. 3993, which defined it). That continuing offence arises if a condominium owner "persecutes and harasses the neighbours with repeated persecutory acts". The court case from which this recent decision originates had as its protagonist a Roman citizen who, exasperated by his neighbour, decided to make several complaints. The various complaints were founded on a "real exasperation" caused by the condominium owner's behaviour, which had forced the victim to be absent from work and to take sleeping pills and tranquillisers. Hence the sentence of custody in prison against the defendant for the offence under Article 612-bis of the Criminal Code.

When does condominium stalking arise?

The Court of Cassation, in the judgment cited above, held that stalking exists if the persecutory acts cause the victim "a serious and lasting state of anxiety or fear such as to compromise the normal carrying out of daily actions, a well-founded fear for his or her own safety or that of a relative, or a change in his or her habits of life". The number of acts is therefore irrelevant; what matters is the seriousness of the behaviour, which must be such as to force the neighbour to change his or her habits of life radically and irreversibly. Even two episodes are enough if the stalker places himself in a position of unmotivated and unjustified predominance such as to wish to harm the victim by exasperating him or her seriously, to the point of causing harm. Condominium stalking may also arise when there is no repetition but there is systematic character, the presence of a persecutory intent which takes the form of a disturbance therefore being necessary. Conversely, where the episodes are merely occasional, one is not yet faced with condominium stalking, but that does not mean that other kinds of offence may not exist, such as the offence of dangerous throwing of things when the condominium owner throws rubbish, cigarette ends or other liquid or solid substances onto the floor below, but only occasionally.

How can one defend oneself against the offence of stalking (including condominium stalking)?

The Court of Cassation therefore reviewed the possible solutions for bringing the stalker's persecutory and harassing behaviour to an end, which may consist in: - a report to the questore, followed by a warning. In those cases the questore must assess whether the application is well founded, even if it is not necessary that proof of the criminally relevant fact be obtained; - an ordinary report to the Carabinieri or to the Public Prosecutor's Office; - one may also apply to the court for it to issue protection orders, such as removal from the family home in the case of stalking carried out by one spouse towards the other or towards the children.