Systematic insults on the internet can lead to imprisonment – ECHR recognized real imprisonment as admissible

On July 7, 2026, the European Court of Human Rights issued a decision in the case of Kunstelj v. Slovenia (application No. 5257/22), which examined the balance between freedom of expression, guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and the right to respect for private life and reputation of others, protected by Article 8 of the Convention. The Court reviewed whether the applicant's conviction for insult and defamation and the imposition of a six-month prison sentence were justified.

The decision has important practical significance for establishing standards of liability for the systematic dissemination of offensive information on the Internet.

The ECHR outlined the limits of protection of freedom of expression in cases where statements do not contribute to public debate but turn into prolonged persecution of specific individuals and significantly violate their right to respect for private life.

Circumstances of the case

The applicant systematically published numerous posts over several years on his personal blog addressed to two journalists. These materials contained coarse offensive language and false statements about their personal lives, sexual behavior, and other private matters. The posts were accessible to a wide audience, and the blog had over 35,000 subscribers. Additionally, some materials were further disseminated by other media outlets.

The victims repeatedly filed civil lawsuits. National courts prohibited the applicant from continuing to spread the relevant information, issued interim measures, and imposed significant fines.

Despite this, the applicant continued to publish similar materials, reposted already deleted entries, and openly stated that he had no intention to stop such activity or comply with court decisions. During the criminal proceedings, he also continued to insult the victims even in court sessions.

National courts found him guilty of insult and defamation and sentenced him to six months imprisonment. The courts reasoned that no other measures could stop the applicant's unlawful behavior.

The Supreme and Constitutional Courts of Slovenia upheld the verdict. After that, the applicant appealed to the ECHR, claiming that his conviction violated his right to freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention.

Position of the ECHR

The ECHR noted that when deciding on the necessity of interference with freedom of expression in the interest of protecting reputation or rights of others, the Court must determine whether national authorities ensured a fair balance between freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10 and the right to respect for private life guaranteed by Article 8.

The Court emphasized that for the application of Article 8, the attack on reputation must reach a certain level of seriousness and be carried out in a manner that harms the personal exercise of the right to respect for private life.

The ECHR stated that when balancing the right to freedom of expression with the right to respect for private life, factors to consider include the contribution of the publication to public debate, the notoriety of the person concerned, the subject of the publication, the prior conduct of the person concerned, the content, form and consequences of the disseminated information, the method of obtaining the information and its veracity, as well as the severity of the sanction applied.

The Court noted that the applicant's posts contained serious offensive statements that extremely negatively characterized the victims and caused them suffering. According to the Court, the content of these publications undoubtedly reached the necessary level of seriousness for the application of the victims' right to respect for private life, including protection of their reputation.

At the same time, the ECHR emphasized that the applicant published the disputed materials on his personal blog, acting as a private individual outside any journalistic activity. Although the victims were journalists, they were not public figures, and the offensive statements concerned not their professional activities but intimate aspects of private life. Accordingly, the case concerned defamation between private individuals publicly disseminated via the Internet.

The Court noted that the applicant's statements, which mostly contained vulgar and offensive expressions, did not contribute in any way to any public debate, were not provoked by the victims' behavior, and constituted continuous persecution. At the same time, they were accessible to a fairly wide audience, considering the significant number of blog readers and further dissemination of these materials by other media.

The ECHR also emphasized that the application of criminal sanctions in defamation cases is not inherently disproportionate. However, imprisonment in such a context remains an exceptional measure and can be compatible with Article 10 only when other fundamental rights have been seriously violated.

The Court noted that the applicant was sentenced to six months imprisonment because national courts concluded that no other punishment would make him stop insulting the victims. Civil law measures and significant fines had already been applied but yielded no results. The applicant openly stated that he would not stop publishing the relevant materials or pay the imposed fines.

The ECHR stressed that even after the first-instance court's verdict, the applicant was given the opportunity to avoid actual imprisonment by ceasing the relevant publications, but he continued similar behavior.

The Court stated that under the specific circumstances of this case, imposing an unconditional prison sentence as an exceptional measure in the sphere of freedom of expression cannot be considered excessive or disproportionate to the legitimate aim of protecting the victims' reputation.

Therefore, the ECHR emphasized that national courts provided proper and sufficient grounds for their conclusions, comprehensively considered all circumstances of the case, and properly balanced competing rights, so the Court sees no reason to substitute their assessment with its own. Under such circumstances, interference with freedom of expression can be reasonably considered necessary in a democratic society.

Violation of the Convention

The ECHR analyzed the complaint solely under Article 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, simultaneously taking into account the need to ensure the victims' right to respect for private life, guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention, when balancing competing rights.

The Court concluded that the interference with freedom of expression was prescribed by law, pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the reputation and rights of others, and was necessary in a democratic society. Accordingly, no violation of Article 10 of the Convention was found.

Thus, the ECHR unanimously declared the application admissible but found no violation of Article 10 of the Convention. The Court confirmed that freedom of expression does not protect the systematic dissemination of gross insults, defamatory statements, and prolonged persecution of private individuals who have no connection to public debate.

Additionally read another position: a journalist can criticize the authorities on Facebook — the ECHR indicated that this is not evidence of terrorism and is protected by freedom of speech.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp, Facebook page and Instagram account to stay informed about the most important events.