Stalking ex-husband who takes furniture out of the house

Stalking for the ex-husband who, in contending with his wife's co-ownership of the flat, which she wants exclusively, damages it. Blitzes, preferably at night, to take away furniture, deface walls, damage furnishings. All immortalised by the camera that his wife had installed in the bedroom, which can be used as evidence against him.

The Court of Cassation thus confirms the man's conviction for persecutory acts and disregards the defence's argument that pointed to the less serious offence of harassment or, better still, to the arbitrary exercise of one's own reasons. In fact, in the appellant's opinion, his loitering in the house was nothing more than an attempt to challenge - outside of court proceedings - his wife's claim to have exclusive use of the whole house, despite the fact that his ex-girlfriend had now decided to live in another town and despite a new relationship in progress. Arguments that turned out to be a boomerang.

The judges of legitimacy explain, in fact, that the difference between stalking and harassment lies, in the former case, in the state of anxiety and timour that induces the offended party to change her life habits. An anguish caused by her ex-husband's intemperance, which had led the woman to settle in another place, where she had continued her work as a Latin and Greek teacher, returning to her home town, where the house at the centre of the dispute was located, just so as not to abandon her social life and old friendships altogether. The argument of the unusability of the recording, made by private individuals, does not pass either. For the judges, the right to confidentiality is not absolute, but gives way to the protection of the community and of property, as well as to the requirements of evidentiary ascertainment in criminal proceedings. Specifically, the videos were used to support statements made by the victim.