Systematic insults on the Internet can lead to imprisonment – ECHR found real imprisonment permissible

 

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has ruled in the case of **Kunstelj v. Slovenia (application no. 5257/22), confirming that freedom of expression does not extend to the systematic dissemination of defamation, insults and prolonged harassment of others online. The Court found that the applicant’s six-month prison sentence did not violate Article 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

The judgment was delivered on 7 July 2026.

The substance of the case

The applicant had systematically published offensive material on his blog for several years against two journalists. The posts contained vulgar language, as well as false allegations about their private lives, sexual behaviour and other private circumstances.

The blog had over 35,000 followers, and individual posts were shared by other media outlets, significantly increasing their audience.

Despite numerous domestic court decisions prohibiting the distribution of the content in question, as well as the imposition of fines and interim measures, the applicant continued to publish similar materials, reposted deleted posts and openly stated that he did not intend to comply with the court decisions.

The domestic courts of Slovenia found him guilty of insult and defamation and sentenced him to six months in prison. The Supreme and Constitutional Courts of the country upheld the sentence.

Position of the ECtHR

In examining the case, the ECtHR emphasised that in resolving such disputes it was necessary to ensure a fair balance between the right to freedom of expression, guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention, and the right of others to respect for their private life and reputation, guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention.

The Court noted that in order to assess such cases, a number of criteria must be taken into account, including:

* the contribution of the statements to the public debate;
* the status of the person about whom the information is disseminated;
* the subject of the publication;
* the method of obtaining and the reliability of the information;
* the content, form and effects of the disseminated materials;
* the severity of the sanction applied.

The ECtHR found that the applicant’s statements were not aimed at discussing issues of public importance. They concerned exclusively the private lives of the victims, contained vulgar insults and defamatory statements and constituted a prolonged persecution of specific individuals.

Deprivation of liberty as an exceptional measure

The Court separately noted that the application of criminal liability for defamation in itself does not contradict the Convention. At the same time, a penalty in the form of deprivation of liberty should be used only in exceptional cases.

In the present case, the ECtHR agreed with the domestic courts’ findings that more lenient measures had already been used and had not yielded results. The applicant had been repeatedly subject to civil sanctions, substantial fines and injunctions, but he had continued to disseminate offensive material and had openly declared his intention not to comply with the court decisions.

Moreover, even after his conviction, he had been given the opportunity to avoid actual imprisonment on condition that he ceased his unlawful conduct, but he had continued to publish.

Court’s Opinion

The ECtHR concluded that the State’s interference with freedom of expression had been prescribed by law, pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the reputation and private life of others and was necessary in a democratic society.

In conclusion, the Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention in the present case.

The decision once again confirms the established practice of the ECHR: freedom of speech is one of the fundamental values ​​of a democratic society, but it does not extend to the systematic dissemination of gross insults, defamation, and targeted persecution of others if such statements have no connection with a socially important discussion.