November 2025 – Decision by the single-member criminal court of athens for the offense under par. 2 of article 333 of the criminal code (stalking) committed against the plaintiff-supporter of the charge, wich was representes by us

With this decision and following a conviction by the Public Prosecutor, the defendant was sentenced for the offense under Article 333, Paragraph 2 of the Criminal Code to seven months’ imprisonment, without the Court accepting that there are any mitigating circumstances that could lead to a reduction in the sentence.

From the uncontested testimony of the complainant-prosecutor, all the documents submitted during the hearing, the testimony of the defense witness, and the defendant’s apology, it was proven that the latter, on a specific date, committed the above act against the complainant. 

More specifically, it was proven that the defendant persistently pursued her, as, despite her expressed opposition, he waited for the complainant outside her workplace, followed her to the bus stop where he waited with her, and when she got on the bus, he boarded also the bus, sat directly behind her to make his presence felt, then got off at the same stop as her, waited for her for about 45 minutes until she came out of her scheduled doctor’s appointment, and then approached her, causing her fear and anxiety.

For this reason, the complainant called the police, while at the same time a patrol car approached, resulting in the perpetrator’s arrest in flagrante delicto. The fear and anxiety caused were also confirmed by the findings of the relevant psychological report, which was compiled after treatment was provided immediately after the incident.

The defense’s claim that there was a pre-existing relationship with the plaintiff in 2020 and that he wanted to know the reason for their breakup had nothing to contribute to the proceedings, but only confirmed his willingness and knowledge to cause fear and anxiety to the complainant, not accepting the termination of their relationship five years prior to the commission of the offense against her.

It should be noted that the defendant, taking advantage of the feelings of shame, guilt, and fear that the complainant had towards him, exploited this very fact to avoid responsibility for his actions. In order to protect the victim’s personal and professional life and to prevent her from suffering mental anguish and humiliation, a request was made under Article 330 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the case to be heard behind closed doors. Although this request was rejected, it demonstrated from the outset both the defendant’s intentions and the groundlessness of his claims, as well as the feelings of the complainant as a result of the defendant’s actions.

The fear and anxiety caused to the complainant, the continuous and persistent pursuit of her despite her expressed opposition, and the defendant’s intention to cause her terror and anxiety knowingly, were proven by the documents submitted by the complainant, including a series of messages she received from the defendant, dated from 2021 to 2025, even after the incident for which he was charged, which led to his arrest in flagrante delicto, in which she explicitly expressed her feelings and her desire not to be harassed, while the defendant expressed his awareness of her feelings, but also his refusal to respect her wishes.

Similarly, from the same evidence above, in combination with the testimony of the defendant’s alleged partner and defense witness, it was proven that he was eager to know the reason for their breakup. She confirmed that she had suggested that the three of them meet so that the complainant would feel safe. Moreover, this claim did not stand up to common sense, but rather demonstrated knowledge of the fear and anxiety caused, as well as persistent persecution of the complainant, despite the fact that during the period in question he had already entered in relationship with other person.

For this reason, the defense’s claim that the plaintiff had allegedly called the defendant in order to meet with him, thereby “setting him up,” was not convincing. Moreover, as demonstrated, no relevant call from the complainant was presented to confirm the claim, which was refuted by all the above documents, despite the defendant’s “haste” to produce his messages with the complainant dating back to 2020, i.e. more than four years before the incident against her.

Finally, neither the defense’s claim that the defendant was violent or used violence or threatened violence, or other illegal act against the complainant, constituted a valid reason for his acquittal or even for raising doubts as to his guilt, as the above actions do not constitute legal elements of the offense. On the contrary, it was proven that all the elements of the objective and subjective substance were fulfilled. In fact, as the disputed incident showed, it was the last of many.

Thus, although no complaint had been filed for the earlier acts, with the result that they had already become irrevocable, they were taken into account as aggravating circumstances, emphasizing the defendant’s intent and demonstrating that the act against the plaintiff was committed in all the ways provided for in relation to the mitigating offense of Article 333(2) of the Penal Code. Consequently, it was accepted that all the legal elements of the alleged act were fulfilled, the commission of which was proven.