Persistent harassment via telecommunication or a computer system
- Persistent harassment via telecommunication or a computer system
- objective elements of the offence
- Distinction from other offences
- Burden of proof and evaluation of evidence
- Practical example
- subjective elements of the offence
- Culpability and mistakes
- Extinction of punishment and diversion
- Sentencing and consequences
- Penalty Range
- Monetary Penalty – Day-fine System
- Imprisonment and (partially) suspended sentence
- Jurisdiction of the courts
- Civil claims in criminal proceedings
- Overview of criminal proceedings
- Rights of the accused
- Practical guidance and behavioural advice
- Your Benefits with Legal Assistance
- FAQ – Frequently Asked Questions
Persistent harassment via telecommunication or a computer system
Persistent harassment according to § 107c StGB covers any repeated and continuous influence on a person that occurs via a telecommunication device or a computer system and is objectively capable of causing significant distress. This includes all digital communication channels such as telephone, SMS, messenger services, email, social networks, and automated systems that send messages, signals, or data. Crucially, these actions must not be isolated but, through accumulation or duration, create a state of persistent harassment that organizationally or psychologically impairs the affected person. A computer system is any device or technical infrastructure that processes, stores, or transmits electronic data and can be used for communication, such as smartphones, computers, servers, platforms, or internet-enabled devices with automated functions.
Persistent harassment involves repeated digital or telecommunicative interferences that noticeably disturb or burden a person and occur via telephone, internet services, or a computer system.
Peter HarlanderHarlander & Partner Rechtsanwälte „Digital harassment does not unfold its effect in seconds, but through duration, reach, and the loss of control over one’s public image.“
objective elements of the offence
The objective element of the offense of § 107c StGB Persistent harassment via telecommunication or a computer system covers any outwardly recognizable digital behavior that is perceptible to a larger number of people over a longer period and is objectively capable of unreasonably impairing a person’s way of life. Protected is the freedom to organize one’s daily life without permanent digital exposure, without publicly perceptible defamation, and without interference in one’s highly personal sphere of life. Crucial is the overall picture of digital influences, not the subjective motivation of the perpetrator. The victim does not need to develop an actual state of anxiety; it is sufficient that the publication or making accessible is objectively capable of generating significant social or psychological pressure.
Steps of legal assessment
Perpetrator:
The perpetrator can be any person who performs the described actions or causes them to be performed by third parties or technical systems. A special position or relationship to the victim is not required. Crucially, the digital publication or making accessible must remain objectively attributable to the perpetrator.
Object of the Offense:
The object of the offense is any person whose free way of life is impaired by the digital perceptibility of the content. The norm particularly protects personal integrity, honor, the highly personal sphere of life, and the ability to organize daily life unaffected by public exposure.
Act:
The act is the central point of connection for the offense. § 107c StGB requires digital dissemination visible to many people over a longer period. The actions must form a burdensome overall pattern that, according to general life experience, is capable of significantly impairing the victim’s way of life. The norm comprises two categories of cases:
- the punishable defamation, which is digitally perceptible to many people over a longer period, and
- the publication of facts or images from the highly personal sphere of life without consent.
Both variants are based on the combined burdening effect of publicity and temporal duration, which typically generate strong social pressure.
Legal definition of a computer system:
According to § 74 Abs. 1 Z 8 StGB a computer system is any single or connected device that serves automated data processing. It includes in particular computers, smartphones, servers, network devices, digital platforms, and any application that collects, processes, stores, or transmits data.
Result of the Offense:
A separate outcome of the offense is not required. It is sufficient that the digital perceptibility persists and is objectively capable of unreasonably impairing the victim’s way of life. An actual complete change in daily life or demonstrable health consequences are not prerequisites, but can influence the assessment of intensity.
Causality:
Causal is any behavior without which the digital publication or making accessible would not have occurred in this form. Indirect processes such as forwarding, platform dissemination, or the involvement of third parties are also included if they enable or intensify the persistent perceptibility.
Objective Attribution:
Behavior is objectively attributable if the perpetrator has created or increased a legally disapproved danger, and this danger materializes in the specific digital perceptibility and the associated burden. Accidental visibility, socially customary digital interactions, or isolated uploads without persistent effect are not covered.
Qualifying circumstances
The qualifying circumstances of § 107c Abs. 2 StGB concern particularly serious cases of persistent digital harassment. They exist when the digital perceptibility or the continued actions reach a degree that significantly exceeds typical case scenarios.
Qualifying constellations exist in particular when
- the incriminating content is perceptible to a larger number of people for longer than one year,
- the perpetrator continuously performs actions according to paragraph 1 against the affected person for more than one year,
- the behavior results in suicide or an attempted suicide by the affected person.
These circumstances characterize cases in which digital exposures or defamatory content have a particularly persistent, intensive, or existential effect and exceptionally impair the victim’s way of life.
Sebastian RiedlmairHarlander & Partner Attorneys „The longer defamatory or intimate content remains online, the more a case shifts from mere impoliteness to punishable persistent harassment.“
Distinction from other offences
The offense of persistent harassment via telecommunication or a computer system according to § 107c StGB covers digital content that is publicly perceptible over a longer period and noticeably impairs a person’s way of life. The focus is on the permanent digital presence of defamatory statements or highly personal information. The wrong arises not from a single publication, but from the duration, reach, and publicity of the digital impact.
- § 105 StGB – Coercion: Coercion requires the enforcement of specific behavior. § 107c StGB, in contrast, is linked to persistent digital perceptibility, without the victim having to be pressured into anything. Both offenses can coexist if digital content is additionally used to exert pressure.
- § 107 StGB – Dangerous Threat: A dangerous threat requires the announcement of a significant harm. § 107c StGB also covers non-threatening publications, provided they have a burdensome effect in the overall picture. If a threat and digital publication coincide, both offenses regularly coexist.
Concurrences:
Genuine Concurrence:
True concurrence exists when additional independent offenses are added to persistent digital harassment, such as dangerous threat, coercion, data misuse, unauthorized image publication, violation of the highly personal sphere of life through images, property damage, or other digital offenses. Persistent digital publication does not displace these offenses but regularly stands independently alongside them.
Spurious Concurrence:
Displacement due to specialty only occurs if another norm fully covers the entire wrong of the digital publication. This is particularly the case with special media law or data protection regulations. Conversely, persistent digital perceptibility itself can establish specialty if only public digital content is affected.
Multiple Offenses:
Multiple offenses exist when the perpetrator impairs several persons through digital content or acts in temporally independent sequences that are not part of a unified course of events. Each publication situation is to be judged as a separate offense.
Continued Action:
A single offense is to be assumed if the digital perceptibility is continuously maintained and a unified purpose is pursued, particularly exposure, intimidation, or persistent digital impairment. The offense ends when the publication is removed or its perceptibility is permanently interrupted.
Peter HarlanderHarlander & Partner Rechtsanwälte „In proceedings concerning digital harassment, the quality of evidence collection often decides, not the gut feeling of those involved.“
Burden of proof and evaluation of evidence
Public Prosecutor’s Office:
The public prosecutor’s office must prove that the accused has published or made accessible digital content over a longer period that was objectively capable of noticeably burdening the affected person. Proof of several concrete actions that together form a burdensome overall picture is important. Thus, it is not about a single post, but about a persistent digital presence that impairs the daily life of the affected person.
It must be proven, in particular, that
- the digital visibility was repeated and existed over a longer period,
- the content clearly went beyond accidental or short-term online occurrences,
- the overall behavior was capable of restricting the affected person in daily life.
The public prosecutor’s office must also demonstrate that the individual actions belong together and form a recognizable stalking pattern.
Court:
The court examines all evidence in its overall context and assesses whether the behavior, according to objective standards, was capable of permanently impairing the victim’s way of life. The central question is whether the influences, in their overall pattern, constitute an unreasonable burden.
In doing so, the court particularly considers:
- Type and content of the publications,
- how often and for how long the content was visible,
- whether honor or the highly personal sphere of life was affected,
- whether a reasonable average person would perceive such a digital presence as massively disturbing.
The court clearly distinguishes it from misunderstandings, isolated incidents, or socially customary contacts.
Accused Person:
The accused person bears no burden of proof. However, they can raise reasonable doubts, particularly regarding
- the actual duration or frequency of the content,
- the question of whether there was truly a continuous pattern,
- the alleged burdensome effect,
- contradictions or missing evidence in the victim’s account.
It can also demonstrate that certain occurrences were accidental, short-term, not intended for public, or misleading.
Typical Assessment
In practice, for § 107c StGB, the following evidence is particularly important:
- Screenshots, secured chat histories, or saved posts,
- public social media entries or comments,
- technical evidence for the duration of online visibility,
- published private images or information,
- witness statements regarding the effects of the publication,
- if applicable, medical or psychological records, if a burden is to be demonstrably presented.
Sebastian RiedlmairHarlander & Partner Attorneys „Diversion in cases of persistent digital harassment is the exception, not the rule, and requires a minimum degree of insight and rectification of the online situation.“
Practical example
- Publication of nude images: The perpetrator posts intimate photos of the victim online without their consent. The images remain publicly visible for a longer period and are accessed or further disseminated by numerous people. Despite multiple requests for deletion, the perpetrator re-uploads the content or uses alternative accounts. The publication from the highly personal sphere of life creates significant psychological pressure and represents a typical case of digital exposure.
- Persistent digital defamation: Over several weeks, derogatory comments, insults, or reputation-damaging posts about the victim repeatedly appear on social networks. The content is permanently viewable, shared, or commented on, thereby amplifying its public impact. Although the victim prevents contact attempts and demands deletion, the perpetrator deliberately continues the publications.
These examples show that persistent digital harassment exists when someone makes content publicly accessible over a longer period that noticeably and unreasonably impairs a person’s daily life.
subjective elements of the offence
The subjective element of the offense of § 107c StGB requires intent. The perpetrator must recognize that their digital publications or making accessible can remain visible for a longer period and are objectively capable of unreasonably impairing the victim’s way of life. It is sufficient that they know or at least seriously expect that the persistent digital visibility of their content will be perceived as burdensome, exposing, or intrusive.
The perpetrator must therefore understand that their behavior, in the overall picture, appears as persistent digital harassment and is typically capable of causing pressure, social disadvantages, or intrusions into the highly personal sphere of life. A targeted specific intent is not required; conditional intent (dolus eventualis) is usually sufficient, i.e., the conscious acceptance of the burdensome effect.
No intent exists if the perpetrator genuinely assumes that their digital content will not be perceived as burdensome, for example, because they believe the publications are only briefly visible, insignificant, or socially customary. Anyone who mistakenly assumes that their behavior cannot disturb the victim or is entirely without consequence does not fulfill the subjective element of the offense.
Ultimately, it is crucial that the perpetrator either consciously aims for the possible effects of their persistent digital actions or at least accepts them. Therefore, anyone who knows or accepts that their repeated or persistently visible content can significantly impair the victim’s way of life acts intentionally and fulfills the subjective element of persistent harassment.
Peter HarlanderHarlander & Partner Rechtsanwälte „Whether someone acts intentionally in a digital context is usually shown by the fact that content is deliberately disseminated despite criticism, blocking, or deletions.“
Culpability and mistakes
A mistake of prohibition only excuses if it was unavoidable. Anyone who engages in conduct that recognizably interferes with the rights of others cannot claim that they did not recognize the illegality. Everyone is obliged to inform themselves about the legal limits of their actions. Mere ignorance or a reckless error does not absolve one of responsibility.
Principle of culpability:
Only those who act culpably are punishable. Intentional offenses require that the perpetrator recognizes the essential events and at least accepts them as a possibility. If this intent is lacking, for example, because the perpetrator mistakenly assumes that their behavior is permitted or is voluntarily supported, at most negligence exists. This is not sufficient for intentional offenses.
Incapacity to be held accountable:
No guilt is attributed to someone who, at the time of the offense, was unable to recognize the injustice of their actions or to act in accordance with this insight due to a severe mental disorder, a pathological mental impairment, or a significant inability to control their actions. In case of corresponding doubts, a psychiatric assessment will be obtained.
An excusable state of necessity may exist if the perpetrator acts in an extreme situation of duress in order to avert an acute danger to their own life or the lives of others. The behavior remains unlawful but can have a mitigating or excusing effect if there was no other way out.
Anyone who mistakenly believes that they are entitled to an act of defense acts without intent if the error was serious and comprehensible. Such an error can reduce or exclude guilt. However, if a breach of duty of care remains, a negligent or mitigating assessment comes into consideration, but not a justification.
Extinction of punishment and diversion
Diversion:
Diversion is generally possible in cases of persistent digital harassment. Since the offense requires digital publication perceptible over a longer period, the possibility of diversion largely depends on how pronounced, how long-lasting, and how burdensome the online perceptibility was. In cases of short duration, limited reach, clear insight, and no prior record, a diversionary solution is quite common in practice. However, the clearer a systematic or long-lasting publication pattern is recognizable, the less likely a diversion becomes.
Diversion may be considered if
- the culpability is low,
- the digital publication is short-term, not very intensive, or only at the lowest threshold of persistent perceptibility,
- the victim was not permanently or only slightly burdened,
- no systematic or long-term sustained publication activity existed,
- the facts are clear, manageable, and unambiguous,
- and the perpetrator is immediately remorseful, cooperative, and willing to make amends.
If diversion is considered, the court can order monetary payments, community service, supervisory instructions, or victim-offender mediation. Diversion leads to no conviction and no criminal record entry.
Exclusion of Diversion:
Diversion is excluded if
- the digital publication persisted over a longer period,
- the victim’s burden was significant or led to severe restrictions,
- a systematic, targeted, or manipulative publication pattern exists,
- intimate content or other data from the highly personal sphere of life was published,
- the behavior had qualified consequences, such as massive psychological distress,
- a suicide or attempted suicide as defined in paragraph 2 has occurred,
- or the overall conduct constitutes a serious violation of personal liberty, honor, or privacy.
Only with significantly minor culpability and immediate insight can it be examined whether an exceptional diversionary procedure is permissible. In practice, diversion for persistent stalking remains possible, but rare.
Sebastian RiedlmairHarlander & Partner Attorneys „An alleged error does not provide protection if one should have clearly recognized the detrimental effect of their digital publications.“
Sentencing and consequences
The court determines the penalty based on the duration, intensity, and reach of the digital publications, as well as how significantly the ongoing visibility actually impaired the victim’s life. Decisive factors include whether the perpetrator repeatedly, purposefully, or systematically posted or maintained access to content online over a longer period, and whether the digital visibility caused a sustained burden or restriction in daily life.
Aggravating Factors Exist in Particular If
- the digital publication remained active for an extended period,
- a systematic or particularly persistent publication pattern existed,
- the victim was significantly restricted,
- intimate content or data from the highly personal sphere of life was published,
- republished despite clear requests for deletion,
- a significant psychological distress occurred,
- or relevant prior convictions exist.
Mitigating Factors Include
- Impeccability,
- a full confession and recognizable insight,
- an immediate cessation of online publications,
- reparations or deletion efforts,
- particular psychological burdens on the perpetrator,
- or excessively long proceedings.
The court may conditionally suspend a prison sentence if it does not exceed two years and the perpetrator shows a positive social prognosis. This also applies to persistent stalking, provided no particularly aggravating circumstances exist.
Penalty Range
Ongoing digital harassment is punishable in its basic form by imprisonment for up to one year or a fine of up to 720 daily rates. Key factors are persistent digital visibility, broad public access, and interference with the highly personal sphere of life.
In severe cases, the penalty framework increases to up to three years imprisonment. Such a case exists particularly if
- the digital visibility lasted longer than one year,
- content was continuously published for more than one year,
- the publication led to suicide or attempted suicide.
This covers cases where digital publications are particularly long-lasting or particularly serious in their consequences.
A later apology, subsequent deletions, or cessation of the behavior do not alter the statutory penalty framework. Such circumstances can only be considered during sentencing. legal classification of the offense.
Monetary Penalty – Day-fine System
Austrian criminal law calculates monetary penalties according to the day-fine system. The number of day-fines depends on the guilt, the amount per day depends on the financial capacity. In this way, the penalty is adapted to the personal circumstances and yet remains noticeable.
- Range: up to 720 day-fines – at least 4 euros, at most 5,000 euros per day.
- Practical formula: Approximately 6 months imprisonment corresponds to around 360 day-fines. This conversion serves only as orientation and is not a rigid scheme.
- In case of non-payment: The court can impose a substitute custodial sentence. As a rule, the following applies: 1 day of substitute custodial sentence corresponds to 2 day-fines.
Note:
In cases of ongoing digital harassment, a fine is primarily considered if the behavior was short-term, not very intense, and the digital publication was only at the lower limit of persistent visibility. The more clearly a systematic or longer-lasting online behavior is evident, or if intimate content is involved, the more likely the court will impose a custodial sentence.
Imprisonment and (partially) suspended sentence
§ 37 StGB: If the statutory penalty ranges up to five years, the court may impose a fine instead of a short custodial sentence of no more than one year. This option also exists for offenses whose basic elements provide for a fine or imprisonment for up to one year, and where higher penalty frameworks are permissible in qualified cases. In practice, however, § 37 StGB is applied cautiously if the behavior was particularly burdensome, premeditated, or involved significant digital reach or duration. In less serious cases, however, § 37 StGB can certainly be applied.
§ 43 StGB: A custodial sentence can be conditionally suspended if it does not exceed two years and the offender has a positive social prognosis. This option also exists for offenses with a basic penalty framework of up to one or more years. Conditional suspension is granted more cautiously if aggravating circumstances exist or the digital publication behavior has created a significant detrimental effect. It is particularly realistic when the behavior is less severe, arose situationally, or the victim has suffered no lasting harm.
§ 43a StGB: Partial conditional suspension allows a combination of an unconditional and conditionally suspended part of a custodial sentence. It is possible for sentences over six months and up to two years. Since penalties in the upper range of the penalty framework can be imposed in qualified constellations of digital harassment, § 43a StGB is regularly considered. However, in cases with particularly serious circumstances, long duration of online visibility, or significant digital detrimental effect, it is applied noticeably more cautiously.
§§ 50 to 52 StGB: The court can additionally issue instructions and order probation assistance. Measures such as restraining orders, specific counseling or therapy programs, compensation for damages, or mandatory behavioral change measures may be considered. The goal is stable legal probation and the prevention of further criminal acts. Special attention is paid to the protection of the affected person and the binding prevention of further digital publications or burdensome online influences.
Jurisdiction of the courts
Peter HarlanderHarlander & Partner Rechtsanwälte „Judicial jurisdiction depends on the severity of the accusation and already indicates the importance the legislator attaches to digital harassment.“
Subject-matter Jurisdiction
For the basic form of ongoing digital harassment, the District Court is generally responsible. The reason for this is that, in normal cases, a penalty of up to one year imprisonment or a fine applies, and such proceedings fall under the jurisdiction of the District Court.
However, if a more severe case exists, for example, if the digital visibility lasted longer than one year or if the publication led to suicide or attempted suicide, the Regional Court as a single judge decides. These constellations involve an increased penalty framework and therefore can no longer be decided by the District Court.
If a particularly serious situation arises where ongoing digital harassment is associated with a severe outcome and the penalty framework significantly increases as a result, the Regional Court as a lay judge court is responsible. In addition to the professional judge, two lay judges participate because the law provides for an expanded panel in more severe cases.
A jury court is not provided for, as no variant of this offense allows for life imprisonment, and therefore the legal requirements are not met.
Local Jurisdiction
The court of the place of the offense is competent. Particularly relevant is
- where the digital publications were made,
- where the affected person perceived the online influences,
- where the detrimental effect occurred,
- or where supplementary digital actions were taken.
If the place of the offense cannot be clearly determined, the jurisdiction is based on
- the residence of the accused person,
- the place of arrest,
- or the seat of the competent public prosecutor’s office.
The proceedings are conducted where a practical and orderly implementation is best guaranteed.
Hierarchy of Courts
An appeal to the Higher Regional Court is possible against judgments of the Regional Court. Decisions of the Higher Regional Court can then be challenged by means of a plea of nullity or further appeal to the Supreme Court.
Civil claims in criminal proceedings
In cases of ongoing harassment via telecommunication or a computer system, the victim themselves or close relatives, as private parties, can assert civil claims directly in criminal proceedings. Since the offense often relies on permanent digital visibility, broad public access, and clear impairment of the highly personal sphere of life, pain and suffering compensation, costs of psychological care, loss of earnings, and compensation for further emotional or health consequences are regularly at issue.
The private party joinder suspends the statute of limitations for all asserted claims as long as the criminal proceedings are pending. Only after a legally binding conclusion does the limitation period begin to run again, insofar as the claim has not been fully awarded.
Voluntary reparation for damages, such as a sincere apology, financial compensation, or active support for the affected person, can have a mitigating effect on the sentence, provided it is timely, credible, and complete.
However, if the perpetrator has digitally disseminated content over a longer period, severely burdened the affected person, published highly personal data or images, or created a particularly drastic digital psychological burden situation, subsequent reparations generally largely lose their mitigating effect. In such constellations, a later settlement cannot decisively relativize the injustice committed.
Sebastian RiedlmairHarlander & Partner Attorneys „Those who expose others digitally risk not only a conviction but also significant civil claims, which often outweigh the penalty itself economically.“
Overview of criminal proceedings
- tart of investigation: formal suspect status upon concrete suspicion; from that point onward, full rights of the accused apply.
- Police / Public Prosecutor: the public prosecutor directs the proceedings, the criminal police conduct the investigation; objective: dismissal of the case, diversion, or indictment.
- Interrogation of the accused: prior instruction on rights; involvement of a defense attorney leads to postponement; right to remain silent remains unaffected.
- Access to the case file: available at the police, public prosecutor’s office, or court; also includes evidence items (insofar as the purpose of the investigation is not jeopardized).
- Main hearing: oral taking of evidence and judgment; decision on civil claims joined to the criminal proceedings.
Rights of the accused
- Information & defense: right to notification, legal aid, free choice of defense counsel, translation assistance, and submission of evidence motions.
- Silence & counsel: right to remain silent at any time; if a defense attorney is requested, the interrogation must be postponed.
- Duty to inform: prompt notification of suspicion and rights; exceptions only permitted to safeguard the purpose of the investigation.
- Practical access to files: investigation and trial records; access by third parties is restricted to protect the accused.
Sebastian RiedlmairHarlander & Partner Attorneys „The right steps in the first 48 hours often determine whether a procedure escalates or remains controllable.“
Practical guidance and behavioural advice
- Maintain silence.
A brief statement is sufficient: “I am exercising my right to remain silent and will first speak with my defense counsel.”
This right applies from the very first interrogation by the police or the public prosecutor. - Contact defense counsel immediately.
No statement should be made without access to the investigation files. Only after reviewing the files can the defense assess which strategy and evidence preservation measures are appropriate. - Secure evidence immediately.
Obtain medical reports; take photographs with date and scale and, where appropriate, X-ray or CT images. Store clothing, objects, and digital records separately. Prepare a witness list and contemporaneous recollection notes within two days at the latest. - Do not contact the opposing party.
Your own messages, calls, or posts may be used as evidence against you. All communication should take place exclusively through your defense counsel. - Secure video and data recordings in time.
Surveillance videos from public transport, venues, or property management systems are often automatically deleted after only a few days. Requests for data preservation must therefore be submitted immediately to the operators, the police, or the public prosecutor’s office. - Document searches and seizures.
In cases of house searches or seizures, you should request a copy of the warrant or record. Note the date, time, persons involved, and all items taken. - In case of arrest: make no statements about the matter.
Insist on immediate notification of your defense counsel. Pre-trial detention may only be imposed if there is strong suspicion of guilt and an additional ground for detention. Less severe measures (e.g., pledge, reporting duty, contact ban) must take precedence. - Prepare compensation for damages strategically.
Payments or offers of reparation should be handled and documented exclusively through defense counsel. Structured compensation for damages has a positive effect on diversion and sentencing.
Peter HarlanderHarlander & Partner Rechtsanwälte „Those who act thoughtfully, secure evidence, and seek legal assistance early retain control over the proceedings.“
Your Benefits with Legal Assistance
Cases of ongoing harassment via telecommunication or a computer system involve infringements on a person’s privacy, personal liberty, and psychological integrity. Crucial is whether the digital publication or dissemination was actually capable of unreasonably impairing the victim’s life and creating a persistent burden. Even small differences in duration, reach, type of content published, or the personal situation of those involved can significantly alter the legal assessment.
Early legal representation ensures that all digital actions, timings, visibilities, and reactions are correctly documented, statements are properly classified, and both incriminating and exculpatory circumstances are carefully examined. Only a structured analysis reveals whether ongoing harassment in the legal sense actually exists or whether individual incidents were exaggerated, misunderstood, or incorrectly placed in an overall context.
Our law firm
- examines whether the digital publication actually reaches the legal threshold of ongoing harassment,
- analyzes content, communication flows, and online activities for contradictions or ambiguities,
- protects you from hasty assessments and one-sided evaluations,
- and develops a clear defense strategy that comprehensibly presents the actual course of events.
As specialists in criminal law, we ensure that the accusation of ongoing digital harassment is legally precisely examined and that the proceedings are conducted on a complete and balanced factual basis.
Sebastian RiedlmairHarlander & Partner Attorneys „Legal support means clearly separating the actual events from interpretations and developing a robust defense strategy based on them.“
