Cyberbullying and Freedom of Expression: The Constitutional Court Upholds the Offence of Dangerous Electronic Harassment
The online environment has created new forms of communication, but also new forms of attacks on privacy, dignity and psychological integrity. The criminal offence of dangerous electronic harassment under § 360b of Act No. 300/2005 Coll., the Criminal Code, as amended, is designed to address such conduct. In its finding no. PL. ÚS 9/2021 of 10.09.2025, the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic examined whether the phrase “otherwise harasses on a long-term basis” in § 360b(1)(a) of Act No. 300/2005 Coll., the Criminal Code, as amended, is so vague that it breaches the principle of nullum crimen sine lege, legal certainty, foreseeability of law and freedom of expression. The Constitutional Court dismissed the application brought by a group of Members of the National Council of the Slovak Republic.
The central objection was that the phrase “otherwise harasses” was too vague and open-ended as an element of a criminal offence. The applicants warned in particular that it could be used against journalists, bloggers, influencers or other persons who engage in long-term criticism of public figures, including politicians. On that argument, even legitimate and proportionate public criticism could be treated as harassment if it subjectively worsened the quality of life of the person criticised.
The Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic emphasised, however, that the contested wording cannot be interpreted in isolation. It must be read in the context of the entire offence. What is criminally relevant is not every unpleasant or critical electronic statement, but only intentional long-term electronic harassment comparable in substance to humiliation, intimidation or unauthorised acting in another person’s name, which results in a substantial deterioration of the victim’s quality of life. According to the Constitutional Court, such an interpretation does not exceed the permissible degree of openness of a criminal-law norm.
The finding is also important from the perspective of freedom of expression. The Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic expressly stated that the contested provision, neither by its wording nor by its purpose, requires law enforcement authorities or criminal courts to punish expression that must be protected under Article 26 of the Constitution of the Slovak Republic and Article 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The mere risk that authorities might apply the provision unconstitutionally in an individual case is not, in itself, sufficient to annul the provision in abstract constitutional review. Ordinary judicial remedies, and ultimately a constitutional complaint, are intended to address such cases.
The practical significance of the finding is that criminal law may use open-textured concepts where they can be interpreted in the context of the offence as a whole and provide sufficiently foreseeable guidance as to prohibited conduct. At the same time, the Constitutional Court set an interpretative boundary: § 360b(1)(a) of Act No. 300/2005 Coll., the Criminal Code, as amended, must not be used as a tool to criminalise constitutionally protected public criticism. It may be applied only to serious forms of cyberbullying which, under a constitutionally compliant interpretation, interfere with the victim’s privacy, dignity or quality of life in a manner comparable to humiliation, intimidation or unauthorised conduct in the victim’s name.
