Arguing with a neighbour, exchanging aggressive messages with a former partner, retaliating against someone who repeatedly disturbs you: situations that many people are familiar with, and which often give rise to cross-complaints for harassment. But what happens, from a criminal law perspective, when both parties behave in the same way? The Court of Cassation, in judgment no. 14016/2026, has reaffirmed a principle of great practical significance: where harassing conduct is reciprocal or retaliatory in nature, the offence under Art. 660 of the Italian Criminal Code (Codice penale) cannot be established.
What Art. 660 of the Italian Criminal Code Provides
Article 660 c.p. punishes anyone who, in a public place or a place open to the public, or by means of the telephone, out of petulance or for any other blameworthy motive, causes annoyance or disturbance to a person. This is an apparently straightforward provision, yet one that conceals considerable interpretative complexity. The crux of the offence lies not merely in the conduct itself — the persistent message, the repeated telephone call, the act of lying in wait — but in the motive underlying it: petulance, understood as inappropriate and overbearing insistence, or another motive which the law defines as «blameworthy» (biasimevole), that is, morally reprehensible.
It is precisely on this element that the Supreme Court's ruling focuses: where the conduct arises as a reaction to provocation by the other party, that quality of moral reprehensibility is no longer present.
The Principle of Reciprocity: Why It Changes Everything
The reasoning followed by the Court of Cassation is, on reflection, consistent with common sense even before it is consistent with the law. Consider two apartment building residents who trade insults with one another every day: the one who responds to the other's insults is not acting out of pure petulance, but out of reaction. His conduct, however disagreeable, does not stem from an autonomous and unjustified impulse; rather, it is the mirror image of a shared conflict.
According to the Court, in such cases the objective element of the offence is absent — that is, the typicity (tipicità) which the legislature intended to suppress. In other words: there is no offence without typicity, and the typicity of Art. 660 c.p. presupposes that the harassment is unilateral, gratuitous, and unprovoked. Where, on the other hand, both parties fuel the conflict, the conduct does not fall within the criminal offence established by the provision.
This does not mean that such conduct is lawful or acceptable on an ethical or civil law level. It means, more precisely, that the criminal law instrument is not the appropriate one for managing situations of mutual conflict of this kind.
Practical Consequences: What Changes for Those Involved in a Dispute
This line of case law has very concrete implications for anyone caught up in a protracted dispute — with a neighbour, a family member, a former spouse, or a colleague. The following are the key points to bear in mind:
- Filing a criminal complaint (sporgere denuncia)
