Stalking and mobbing are two distinct social phenomena, constituting a type of emotional abuse. They are often used interchangeably, but they should not be confused, as they constitute two distinct crimes, each punishable by different penalties. These phenomena have always been present in society, but only recently have they been given a name. Through social development, they have been classified as reprehensible behaviors, condemned, and consequently implemented into law. Below, we describe each phenomenon and outline the similarities and differences between them.
Stalking
Stalking is a form of emotional abuse that involves persistent harassment. The victim experiences fear and anxiety for their own safety. While the stalker's behavior is typically harmless to the victim, it negatively impacts their psyche. Their actions seem "normal" and, when observed by others, raise no suspicion. However, a closer look reveals that some actions occur continuously. Examples of stalking include following another person, sending messages from an unknown number, or leaving silent calls. The intent is to instill fear and excessive stress in the other person. Such actions, while seemingly trivial, cause anxiety in the victim and disrupt their daily lives. If the stalker does not respond to requests to stop, it is necessary to report the incident to the police. This problem should not be underestimated, as stalkers are often mentally ill. Evidence, such as letters, text messages, and recordings, should be collected. The victim may apply for a restraining order and monetary compensation.
Stalking is punishable by criminal liability under Article 190a of the Penal Code – "Persistent harassment. Identity theft." This article protects freedom from fear, the right to a peaceful existence, the right to privacy, and a person's life. "Harassment" refers to tormenting, oppressing, persecuting, harassing, or intimidating another person. "Persistent" means that it must last for some time, be intense, permanent, intrusive, and intrusive. Persistence includes frequency, duration, which should be several months, and the perpetrator's ignoring of the victim's requests to cease. Persistent harassment does not have to involve aggression. This provision also stipulates that anyone who uses another person's image or data to cause property or personal harm is subject to punishment. Persistent harassment and identity theft are prosecuted at the request of the injured party, and the penalty for the perpetrator in both cases is imprisonment from six months to eight years. If the injured party attempts to take their own life, criminal liability is aggravated, with imprisonment ranging from two to 12 years.
A stalker may be held liable not only under the Penal Code. Article 23 of the Civil Code sanctions the violation of another person's personal rights. The provision lists personal rights such as health, freedom, honor, freedom of conscience, name or pseudonym, image, confidentiality of correspondence, inviolability of the home, and scientific, artistic, inventive, and rationalizing work. The list of personal rights is open-ended – the above list is only an example.
Mobbing
The definition of mobbing appears in the Labor Code in Article 94, Index 3, §2. Mobbing refers to behaviors or actions concerning or directed against an employee. It involves persistent and prolonged harassment or intimidation. These actions are intended to cause an employee to underestimate their professional suitability, resulting in or aimed at humiliating or ridiculing the employee, isolating them, or eliminating them from their team of colleagues. The person engaging in mobbing may be an employer (an individual), an employee, persons managing the workplace on behalf of the employer, superiors, or even third parties outside the workplace, such as contractors. The assessment of whether a given behavior causes an employee to underestimate their professional suitability is based on objective criteria. For mobbing to occur, two conditions must be met: externalized acts by the person engaging in mobbing and the employee's subjective feelings. The goal does not have to be achieved, nor does it have to result. The Supreme Court, in its judgment of March 16, 2010, file reference no. I PK 203/09 took the view that "unintentional actions or behaviours concerning or directed against an employee, in particular those that caused a health disorder in the employee, may also be considered mobbing."
The topic under discussion raises the issue of defining the terms "persistence" and "duration." It is difficult to determine whether a given behavior can be considered persistent or long-term, so each case must be assessed individually.
The Labor Code lists the employer's obligations. These include the obligation to counteract mobbing in the workplace. If an employee experiences mobbing, the employer is liable for any property damage to the employee, even if the reprehensible behavior was committed by another employee, a person managing the workplace, a supervisor, or a third party. The Labor Code does not regulate employer liability, therefore Article 300 of the Labor Code applies, as do the provisions of the Civil Code regarding liability for non-performance or improper performance of an obligation (Article 471 of the Civil Code) and for torts (Article 415 of the Civil Code). Article 430 of the Civil Code, on the other hand, establishes the liability of a superior (employer) for damage caused to another person by a subordinate while performing their assigned duties. An employer may also be liable for instigating or aiding mobbing under Article 422 of the Civil Code.
The victim bears the burden of proving that mobbing occurred. Compensation claims should be pursued by the employee against the employer. After the damage has been remedied, the employer may then seek recourse against the mobbing party. An employee who has suffered a health disorder may seek monetary compensation from the employer for the harm they have suffered. A victim of mobbing may seek compensation for the harm they have suffered to their mental or physical health. The amount of compensation is determined by the court. If an employee resigns due to mobbing, they may seek compensation for the losses they have suffered.
Similarities and differences between mobbing and stalking
The first common characteristic of mobbing and stalking is that they stem from a variety of legally permitted behaviors, which, when undertaken consistently, escalate into legal liability. An example is leaving notes with a message. In the case of stalking, these messages are intended to intimidate the victim, while in mobbing, these messages are intended to ridicule the employee. Another characteristic is the long-term and persistent nature of the behavior. Therefore, it's not enough for someone to receive, for example, an offensive message once; the actions must be extended over time, repeated, and continuous. Both phenomena constitute psychological violence, negatively impacting the victim's emotions.
The differences include the stalker, the context of the harassment, its purpose, and the form of the action. Anyone can be a stalker and their victim, while the mobbing perpetrator can only be an employer, employee, supervisor, or a third party connected to the workplace. The victim can only be an employee, i.e., a person employed under an employment contract. The difference in the form of the action lies in the fact that the stalker is guided by emotions and uses a form of psychological assault—invading the victim's privacy. The mobbing perpetrator intimidates or harasses the employee. The stalker aims to evoke anxiety, fear, and anxiety, while the mobbing perpetrator aims to cause the employee to underestimate their professional suitability. The basis for the perpetrator's liability differs between the two phenomena. Stalking is punishable under the Criminal Code (in which case law enforcement agencies are notified), while mobbing is punishable under labor law and civil law (the possibility of a claim in a labor court).
Summary
While the behaviors discussed individually are not inherently wrong, when combined, they constitute a dangerous phenomenon. Stalking and mobbing are regulated by law and subject to legal sanctions. These seemingly trivial actions can lead to psychological and physical problems for the victim, and may even pose a threat to their life. Therefore, they should not be ignored and, if you feel threatened, report them to the appropriate authorities.
