School harassment and legal obligations of institutions: what the law says in 2026

On March 2, 2022, France took a decisive step in the fight against school harassment by creating a specific offense, with penalties of up to ten years in prison in the most serious cases. Since that date, school harassment is no longer just an educational problem: it is a criminal offense. And schools are no longer just prevention actors: they have specific legal obligations whose non-compliance can engage their responsibility.

However, four years after this historic law, many education professionals do not precisely know the content of their obligations. They know that "something must be done" but are unaware of what the law concretely requires, when their personal responsibilities come into play, and what the real consequences of documented inaction are.

This guide has been designed to fill this knowledge gap. It is aimed at all professionals in educational institutions — heads of institutions, teachers, CPE, education assistants, school health staff — with a clear objective: understand the legal framework, measure responsibilities, and act with full knowledge. It does not replace professional legal advice but serves as a solid reference to guide practices.

1. Before 2022: a legal void with serious consequences

Before the law of March 2, 2022, school harassment did not exist as an autonomous offense in French law. Harassment situations could be pursued based on pre-existing offenses — violence, insults, threats, moral harassment in the sense of the Penal Code — but these qualifications were inadequate for the specificities of harassment among minors in a school environment.

This inadequacy had concrete consequences: long and uncertain procedures, frequent dismissals due to a lack of clearly characterized offenses, and above all, a sense of impunity among harassers and abandonment among victims. Schools acted within a vague framework, without clearly defined obligations or precisely provided sanctions in case of failure.

Several highly publicized cases — suicides of adolescents who were victims of harassment, some of whom had been reported without follow-up — highlighted the insufficiency of the existing legal framework and created social and political pressure for profound legislative reform.

2. The law of March 2, 2022: what has fundamentally changed

Law No. 2022-299 of March 2, 2022, aimed at combating school harassment, constitutes the most significant reform in this area for decades. It introduces several major provisions that transform the legal framework applicable to schools and their staff.

The creation of the offense of school harassment

The law creates an article 222-33-2-3 in the Penal Code that specifically defines and punishes school harassment. For the first time, harassment between students benefits from its own criminal qualification, distinct from general moral harassment. This qualification applies to acts committed within a school or in connection with schooling — which explicitly includes cyberbullying among students of the same institution.

The extension to acts committed outside of school

One of the essential contributions of the law is to extend the qualification of school harassment to acts committed outside the school premises, as long as they involve students from the same institution or occur in connection with schooling. This extension explicitly covers cyberbullying — which, by definition, occurs outside the walls of the school — and puts an end to the argument that the institution did not have to intervene in digital behaviors "outside its jurisdiction."

The strengthening of the obligations of institutions

The law strengthens and formalizes the obligations of institutions regarding the prevention and handling of harassment. It mandates the designation of a harassment referent in each secondary school, the establishment of reporting and intervention protocols, and the organization of regular awareness-raising actions. These obligations, which already existed in the form of recommendations in previous circulars, now have a firmer legislative basis.

3. The offense of school harassment: definition, penalties, aggravating circumstances

A precise understanding of the offense of school harassment as defined by the Penal Code is essential for professionals. It allows for the correct qualification of the situations encountered and understanding the legal stakes for the perpetrators — including when these perpetrators are minors.

The legal definition

The offense of school harassment is constituted by the act of harassing a student through repeated remarks or behaviors aimed at or resulting in a deterioration of their schooling conditions that may harm their rights and dignity, alter their physical or mental health, or compromise their professional future. This definition incorporates the three fundamental criteria of harassment (repetition, intentionality, power imbalance) while adapting them to the school context.

The basic penalties and aggravating circumstances

The penalties incurred vary according to the severity of the acts and their consequences. The table below summarizes the legal scale.

Application to minor perpetrators

These penalties apply to adult perpetrators. For minors, juvenile criminal law (2019 ordinance codified in the Code of Juvenile Criminal Justice) provides responses adapted to age — educational measures, pedagogical sanctions, and in the most serious cases, placement in a specialized institution. The age of the perpetrator does not eliminate criminal qualification but adapts the consequences.

A crucial point for institutions: parents of minor perpetrators can have their civil liability engaged for the damages caused by their child. Victim families can seek compensation based on this parental responsibility, regardless of the criminal proceedings.

4. The concrete obligations of schools

Beyond the criminal framework that applies to individual perpetrators of harassment, schools have specific institutional obligations. These obligations are legislative (2022 law), regulatory (ministerial circulars), and common law (general safety obligation arising from the Education Code).

• Designate a trained harassment referent. Each secondary school must designate a harassment referent. This designation must be formalized (written document, communication to the team and students) and accompanied by appropriate training for the designated person. A designation without training is a partially fulfilled obligation.
• Establish a written reporting and intervention protocol. The institution must have a formalized protocol describing the steps to follow when reporting or detecting harassment: who receives reports, within what timeframe, according to what investigation procedure, with what immediate protection measures for the victim.
• Display national help numbers. The numbers 3018 (cyberharassment) and 3020 (school harassment) must be displayed in the common areas of the institution — entrance hall, library, corridors, infirmary. This display is a concrete and verifiable obligation.
• Organize at least one annual awareness-raising action. Each institution must schedule at least one awareness-raising action for students on school harassment and cyberharassment each school year. This action can take various forms: class session as part of EMC, intervention by an association, thematic day, film screening followed by a debate.
• Train staff. The obligation of results regarding student safety implies that staff have the skills to detect and address harassment situations. Continuous training of staff is therefore a derived obligation from this general obligation, even if it is not prescribed in terms of number of hours or frequency.
• Document situations and actions. Any reported or detected harassment situation must be documented in writing: observed facts, dates, measures taken, follow-up actions. This documentation is proof that the institution has fulfilled its obligations — its absence may conversely constitute a presumption of failure.
• Inform and involve families. The parents of the students involved — both victims and perpetrators — must be informed of the situations and measures taken. The institution is obliged to involve them in the process within a reasonable timeframe. A failure to inform families is regularly invoked in proceedings against institutions.

5. The responsibility of the head of the institution: how far does it go?

The head of the institution occupies a particular position in the chain of responsibility. As the representative of the State in the institution and guarantor of student safety, their responsibility can be engaged in several respects.

Administrative responsibility

In the public education system, the responsibility of the State — and therefore of the institution — is engaged in case of fault in the organization or functioning of the public education service. Harassment that has lasted several months without the institution intervening despite clear signals may be qualified as a service fault. The victim or their parents can then seek compensation before the administrative court, without having to prove a personal fault of the head of the institution.

Personal criminal responsibility

The personal criminal responsibility of the head of the institution can be engaged in two main situations. The first is failure to assist a person in danger (article 223-6 of the Penal Code): if the head of the institution was aware of a situation of serious danger for a student and did not act, they may be prosecuted on this basis. The second is deliberately endangering the life of others (article 223-1 of the Penal Code): if the inaction was deliberate and exposed a student to serious risk, this more severe qualification may be retained.

In practice, criminal prosecutions against heads of institutions remain rare but do exist. They typically occur in extreme situations — a student's suicide after reported and untreated harassment — and require proof of a characterized personal fault, distinct from service fault.

6. The responsibility of staff: what every agent should know

The responsibility regarding school harassment does not only concern heads of establishments. Every agent of the National Education — teacher, CPE, educational assistant, nurse, social worker, guidance counselor — can find their responsibility engaged in case of failure to meet their reporting and protection obligations.

The obligation to report concerning situations

Article 40 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires any official who becomes aware of a crime or offense in the exercise of their duties to inform the public prosecutor without delay. Since school harassment is now a criminal offense, this obligation applies. In practice, this means that any staff member of the National Education who is aware of a proven harassment situation has a legal obligation to report it — first to their hierarchy, and if this route is insufficient or blocked, directly to the prosecutor.

More generally, Article L. 226-2-1 of the Code of Social Action and Families requires any person who is aware of a situation of danger or risk of danger for a minor to report it without delay to the president of the departmental council (child protection). This obligation is independent of the professional status of the agent and applies personally.

The functional protection of agents

Public agents who report in good faith situations of harassment and who act in accordance with established protocols benefit from the functional protection of the State. This means that the administration covers their legal defense in case of being implicated, and protects them against potential pressures or reprisals. This protection is an important element to know: it reduces personal risks associated with action and lifts a common psychological barrier to intervention.

7. The obligation to report: when, how, to whom?

The obligation to report is one of the most misunderstood aspects of the legal framework by education professionals. Many hesitate to report out of fear of being wrong, harming a student, or worsening a situation. This hesitation, while understandable, can constitute a legal failure.

The principle of reporting concerns

Case law and reference texts are clear: reporting does not require certainty. One reports a concern, a worry, a situation that "could" fall under harassment or danger for a minor. The role of the professional is not to establish proof before reporting — it is the responsibility of the competent authorities to establish it after the report. A report made in good faith, even if the situation turns out to be less serious than feared, cannot be reproached to the professional who made it.

The internal hierarchical chain

In the vast majority of situations, reporting should first follow the internal hierarchical chain: staff report to the harassment referent or to the management, who takes charge of the situation according to the established protocol. This internal route is the norm.

Direct reporting to the prosecutor or child protection services is reserved for situations where the internal route is blocked (inactive or involved hierarchy) or insufficient (immediate danger for the student). In these cases, Article 40 of the CPP authorizes and even imposes direct reporting, without going through the hierarchy.

8. The legal framework of cyberbullying: specifics and digital offenses

Cyberbullying is covered by the law of 2022 as long as it involves students from the same establishment or occurs in connection with schooling. But beyond this general qualification, certain forms of cyberbullying constitute specific offenses that professionals must be aware of.

Specific digital offenses

The non-consensual distribution of sexual or intimate images or videos is punishable under "revenge porn" (article 226-2-1 of the Penal Code), even between minors and even if the images were taken consensually. The penalty is 2 years of imprisonment and 60,000 euros in fines, increased to 3 years and 75,000 euros if the victim is a minor. Digital identity theft (creating a false profile in someone else's name) is punishable under article 226-4-1 of the Penal Code. Online harassment with threats of death or serious violence may fall under the aggravated threat offense.

The obligations of platforms and the role of the establishment

The law imposes rapid removal obligations on digital platforms for illegal content. The establishment can — and must — assist victims in reporting to the platforms and to 3018, which has a dedicated service for the accelerated removal of content. The Avia law of 2020 and the European DSA (Digital Services Act, applicable since 2024) strengthen these obligations of platforms and open faster recourse avenues for victims.

9. Private establishments under contract: the same obligations?

Private establishments under contract with the State are subject to the same legal obligations as public establishments regarding school harassment. The association contract implies compliance with the public education service and the regulatory texts that govern it, including the circulars related to the "No to harassment" program.

Private establishments not under contract also have legal obligations arising from common law (protection of minors, security obligation) and the Penal Code (failure to assist a person in danger). However, they do not benefit from the functional protection of the State for their staff, making the establishment of internal protocols and training of teams even more important for their protection.

10. Practical cases: responsibilities engaged and legal lessons

11. Protecting oneself through training: the moral and practical obligation

The legal framework is clear. The obligations are defined. The risks for institutions and staff in case of failure are real and documented. In this context, training is no longer just a pedagogical investment — it is a necessity for compliance and professional protection.

An institution whose staff have been trained, whose protocol is known and applied, and whose actions are documented, has a legally much stronger position than an institution that improvises. Certified training is also the most tangible proof that the obligation for results in staff training has been honored.

The training Preventing and Acting Against School Bullying and Cyberbullying by DYNSEO covers the entire legal framework applicable to institutions and staff, translating it into concrete obligations and adapted professional practices. It incorporates the most recent legislative developments and provides participants with an operational understanding of their responsibilities — not to paralyze them with fear, but to give them the confidence to act competently and safely.

Knowing your legal obligations also means knowing your rights: the right to report without fearing retaliation, the right to functional protection when acting in good faith within the scope of your duties, the right to demand from your hierarchy an institutional framework that allows you to exercise your responsibilities. The law protects those who act. It exposes those who do not act. It's as simple as that.