With the dynamic development of the Internet, which has provided society with almost unlimited access to information, knowledge, and various services, new forms of threats have also emerged. One of the most concerning phenomena is cyberstalking—an increasingly observed issue in the digital space, posing a significant challenge to law enforcement agencies and the justice system.
Cyberstalking is a form of cyberbullying. It involves the persistent harassment of an individual or group using electronic and telecommunication tools—such as social media, messaging apps, email, or online forums. The perpetrator’s actions, often carried out anonymously, aim to cause psychological harm, violate privacy, or instill fear. In extreme cases, these behaviors can lead to criminal acts.
The term cyberstalking derives from the English verb to stalk, meaning to follow or persecute. In the Polish public discourse, it is also referred to as “cybernękanie” (cyberharassment) or emotional abuse. Academic definitions describe it as repetitive, intentional, and hostile behavior by one person (or group) toward another that severely infringes on the victim’s privacy, dignity, or other personal rights.
Typical behaviors of cyberstalkers include: persistent monitoring of the victim’s online activities, sending unwanted messages, publishing images without consent, posting negative comments, spreading false information, or encouraging others to ridicule, insult, or provoke the victim. Such actions carry serious psychological consequences—for both the directly affected person and their loved ones. They may lead to feelings of entrapment, loss of safety, depression, and in severe cases, suicidal thoughts.
In Polish criminal law, stalking was only regulated in 2011 with the addition of Article 190a to the Penal Code. Before that, there were no specific provisions directly addressing this type of behavior. Prior to legislative changes, the Ministry of Justice conducted a social survey involving 10,200 participants. The results showed that as many as 9.9% of respondents had been victims of persistent harassment. This clearly demonstrated that stalking had ceased to be a marginal issue and required a legal response.
Over time, the digital form of stalking—cyberstalking—gained increasing importance. Technological advances have enabled perpetrators to reach victims on an unprecedented scale, often without their knowledge and using tools that obscure the perpetrator’s identity. In response to this new reality, the legislator amended Article 190a § 1 of the Penal Code on March 31, 2020. This amendment was significant—it added to the list of criminal characteristics not only the existing criteria of feeling threatened and privacy violation but also humiliation and torment. This expansion allowed protection to extend to individuals who—though not necessarily experiencing fear—suffer from other forms of abuse such as psychological exhaustion, erosion of dignity, or the feeling of being constantly watched.
The amendment also clarified what constitutes identifying data of the victim. It introduced the phrase “other data by which a person is publicly identified.” This protection thus extended to individuals using pseudonyms, nicknames, or avatars—crucial for artists, journalists, activists, and others operating online. This was an important step, reflecting an understanding of how people’s identities and presentations have evolved in virtual spaces.
Despite these important legal changes, prosecuting cyberstalking in practice still faces major challenges. According to the report “Crime in the 21st Century,” law enforcement officers often struggle with excessive procedural formalism, lack of flexibility, and insufficient operational tools that fail to keep pace with the rapidly changing digital environment. An additional problem is the difficulty in identifying perpetrators, especially when they act anonymously or from abroad.
Interpretation of cyberstalking regulations is also reflected in judicial decisions. In a Supreme Court ruling on March 29, 2017 (case IV KK 413/16), it was emphasized that the feeling of threat must be objectively justified—that is, it should correspond to the reaction of an average person. The Court also noted that observation or filming from public spaces is not always a crime but can constitute a violation of privacy if it is persistent and hostile. Systematic and intrusive behavior is key and must be assessed in its entirety.
Similarly, the European Court of Human Rights in the case Buturugă v. Romania (56867/15) found that Romanian authorities failed to provide adequate protection to the complainant from cyberviolence by her former partner. The Court reminded that states have the obligation to ensure effective protection of individuals from violence—including digital violence—which stems from fundamental human rights standards.
In the context of cyberstalking, the question of the limits of freedom of speech on the Internet is increasingly raised. According to Article 54 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, everyone has the right to express opinions and to obtain and disseminate information. However, like any right, this freedom has limits. It must be balanced with other constitutional values, such as the right to privacy (Article 47) and protection of personal rights, which are also safeguarded under the Civil Code.
Therefore, calls for further legislative action should include not only clarifications of criminal provisions but also the development of protection tools and systemic support for victims. In particular, consideration should be given to:
- Creating specialized units within law enforcement agencies dedicated to cyberviolence,
- Introducing fast-track legal protective measures such as electronic no-contact orders,
- Increasing access to psychological and legal assistance for victims of digital abuse,
- Conducting public awareness campaigns clarifying where freedom of speech ends and violence begins.
Cyberstalking is a complex and dangerous phenomenon—not only because it is difficult to detect but above all because its effects are real and long-lasting. It affects emotions, identity, and everyday life. It requires on the one hand effective and thoughtful legislation and on the other an engaged society and institutions capable of response. Protecting dignity, privacy, and a sense of security in the digital world should be one of the pillars of modern criminal law—not just as a reaction to threats but as a conscious and active form of state responsibility toward its citizens.
Author: Marta Macuga – Attorney specializing in commercial law, intellectual property, and new technologies. She successfully supports IT sector companies with IT contracts, GDPR, and IP protection, representing their interests also in litigation.
Her practice also covers medical and pharmaceutical law, cooperating with medical facilities, life sciences companies, and medtech startups.
Chałas & Partners Law Firm
