Switzerland Creates Standalone Crime of Stalking Under New Article 181b

New provision, in force since January 1, 2026, gives Swiss law a dedicated response to conduct long treated through a patchwork of offences

In practical terms, the new article targets anyone who persistently follows, harasses or threatens another person in a way capable of seriously restricting that person’s freedom to live as they choose. The provision is placed among offences against personal liberty, reflecting the idea that stalking is not just a nuisance or a private dispute, but a form of conduct that can erode a person’s autonomy, daily routines and sense of safety.

Before this reform, Swiss law did not have a specific stalking offence. Victims could still seek protection through a combination of criminal provisions such as threat and coercion, as well as civil-law protection measures, but the legal response was fragmented. That mattered because stalking often consists of many acts that may look minor when viewed one by one, yet become deeply harmful when seen as a persistent pattern. The new law is meant to capture that cumulative reality directly, instead of forcing prosecutors and courts to stretch other offences to fit.

The change also closes a long-running legislative debate. For years, Swiss authorities were reluctant to create a separate stalking offence, arguing that existing criminal and civil remedies were enough. But pressure continued to build through parliamentary initiatives and through Switzerland’s international commitments. Article 34 of the Council of Europe’s Istanbul Convention requires states to criminalise stalking, defined as repeated threatening conduct directed at another person and causing fear for that person’s safety. Switzerland has been bound by the convention since 2018.

What makes the Swiss reform important is that it recognizes stalking as a course of conduct, not simply as a string of unrelated incidents. That may sound technical, but it has real consequences. A barrage of messages, repeated appearances near a home or workplace, unwanted gifts, surveillance, or veiled threats may not always seem dramatic in isolation. Taken together, however, they can fundamentally alter how a person lives — forcing victims to change routes, avoid public places, withdraw from social life, or live under constant stress. The new article is designed for precisely that kind of cumulative pressure.

  At the same time, the reform is likely to shift difficult decisions to the courts. The final wording of Article 181b does not criminalise every unwanted contact or every emotionally charged conflict after a breakup. Instead, it requires persistent conduct that is capable of considerably restricting the victim’s freedom to shape his or her life. That threshold is meant to prevent the criminal law from being used against conduct that is merely irritating or socially awkward, but it also means judges will have to decide where persistence ends and criminal stalking begins.

The digital dimension is another reason the reform matters. Modern stalking often unfolds through phones, messaging apps, social media, location tracking and online monitoring, blurring the line between offline and online harassment. Swiss official reporting has also noted that digital forms of violence are becoming increasingly central in this area. The new article does not remove the practical challenges of proving cyberstalking, especially when data is stored abroad or evidence is scattered across platforms, but it does give prosecutors a clearer legal framework for addressing the overall pattern.

For Switzerland, Article 181b is more than a symbolic update. It is an attempt to bring the law into line with the lived experience of victims, whose freedom is often undermined not by one spectacular act but by relentless repetition. The reform closes a gap that had long been acknowledged in public debate. Its real success, however, will depend on how consistently Swiss courts interpret and apply it in the months and years ahead.

Source note: This article is a synthesis of a doctrinal contribution by Dario Item on the new Art. 181b SCC, including its legislative genesis, dogmatic structure, threshold of punishability, relation to Arts. 180 and 181 SCC, and digital-evidence implications.