THIRD SECTION
CASE OF HELME v. ESTONIA
(Application no. 3023/22)
 
JUDGMENT
 
Art 6 (criminal) • Fair hearing • Conviction of applicant following explicitly sexual conversations with an undercover police officer purporting to be a 12-year-old girl in an online chatroom, and the use of the resulting evidence in the criminal proceedings against him • Alleged entrapment in an online context • Existence of good reasons for initiating undercover operation on the basis of information received on potential sexual enticement of minors on the relevant website • Feasibility of prior identification of possible suspects in online context prior to mounting an undercover operation • Lack of objective suspicion that it was the applicant specifically who had been involved in criminal activity or was predisposed to engage in such conduct not decisive • Existence of an objective suspicion that was specific to a defined and limited virtual space • Context of crimes against minors • Initiation of undercover operation did not imply an intention to entrap the applicant • Actions of the police did not constitute as such unlawful activity nor did they presume illegal actions on the part of the person they were communicating with • Undercover police officer did not abandon required passive attitude • Applicant not under any express or implied pressure to commit the impugned offence • Use of undercover police officer did not amount to incitement
 
Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court. STRASBOURG
7 October 2025
 
FINAL
 
09/02/2026
 
This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Helme v. Estonia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
 Ioannis Ktistakis, President,
 Peeter Roosma,
 Lətif Hüseynov,
 Darian Pavli,
 Diana Kovatcheva,
 Canòlic Mingorance Cairat,
 Vasilka Sancin, judges,
and Milan Blaško, Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 3023/22) against the Republic of Estonia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by an Estonian national, Mr Peeter Helme (“the applicant”), on 10 January 2022;
the decision to give notice to the Estonian Government (“the Government”) of the complaint under Article 6 § 1 of online entrapment, and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 9 September 2025,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
INTRODUCTION
1. The application concerns the applicant’s alleged online entrapment by an undercover police officer who, while using a pseudonym, engaged in conversations with the applicant in an online chatroom. The applicant complained that evidence resulting from that police operation had been used in criminal proceedings against him, in breach of his right to a fair trial. THE FACTS
2. The applicant was born in 1978 and lives in Tallinn. He was represented by Mr R. Ainla, a lawyer practising in Tallinn. 3. The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr T. Kolk, Representative of Estonia to the European Court of Human Rights. 4. The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. Authorisation and use of an undercover police officer
5. On 19 September 2019 criminal proceedings were initiated on the basis of information received earlier that year indicating that various persons had used certain internet sites (www.facebook.com and www.armastusesaal.org) to engage in chats of a sexual nature with minors under the age of 14 and had sent them files containing sexual content. No additional information has been provided regarding the nature or source(s) of the above-mentioned information. 6. On the basis of the information described in the previous paragraph, on 27 September 2019, under Article 1269 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (kriminaalmenetluse seadustik), the prosecutor’s office authorised the use of an undercover police officer to gather information on the website www.armastusesaal.org (which translates as “hall of love”). 7. Between 8 October 2019 and 8 December 2019 the police conducted a secret surveillance operation on that website. A police officer using the fictional identity of a 12-year-old girl named Marleen Ilus and the pseudonym “Marleen12” used online chatrooms on that site in order to collect information relevant to the proceedings. 8. During that operation a person with the username “m41tln” had explicitly sexual conversations via private messages with “Marleen12” on the website. 9. On the basis of the information obtained from the above-mentioned conversations, on 17 November 2019 separate criminal proceedings were initiated to investigate the possible commission of an offence by the person using the username “m41tln”. The proceedings revealed that the applicant was the person behind that username. The transcripts of those conversations were included in a report on the secret surveillance operation. That report was subsequently used as evidence in the proceedings against the applicant. 10. The transcripts show that the applicant initiated chats with “Marleen12” on 8 October 2019 at 7.52 p.m., 9 October 2019 at 5.58 p.m., 14 October 2019 at 5.46 p.m., 3 November 2019 at 1.46 p.m., 10 November 2019 at 5.46 p.m., 11 November at 4.35 p.m., 17 November 2019 at 11.00 a.m., 22 November 2019 at 7.16 p.m., 30 November 2019 at 3.37 p.m., 1 December 2019 at 6.20 p.m., 4 December 2019 at 3.49 p.m. and 8 December 2019 at 6.12 p.m. During the chat on 8 October 2019, at 7.58 p.m. “Marleen12” stated that she was 12 years old. On a couple of occasions when “Marleen12” did not respond immediately, the applicant repeated his greetings. During those chats, the applicant brought up sex-related topics on numerous occasions. For example, on 9 October 2019 he noted that chats in the chatroom usually covered topics involving sex and asked “Marleen12” to give examples of issues she had seen being discussed. He followed this up by asking whether she already had “boobs” and whether she had heard that some people had sex with very young children. On 3 November 2019 he mentioned that he had visited a woman who had a very young daughter – younger than “Marleen12” – and that he had had sex with that girl, and he followed this up by asking whether “Marleen12” was interested in sex. On 17 November 2019 he asked “Marleen12” to remind him whether she had already had sex, whether she had watched porn, masturbated and had an orgasm, and whether she was sexually interested in girls or women. Court proceedings against the applicant
11. On 30 November 2020 the Harju County Court convicted the applicant of attempted sexual enticement of a minor. 12. In response to a request by the applicant, the Harju County Court analysed the lawfulness of the above-described secret surveillance operation with a view to determining whether the report on that operation, which contained transcripts of the applicant’s chats, could be admitted in evidence. 13. The court familiarised itself with the secret surveillance file. It confirmed that the use of an undercover police officer had been authorised by the prosecutor’s office. The authorisation had concerned an offence in respect of which secret surveillance operations could be conducted under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Referring to two authorisation decisions in the file, the court considered that at the time of authorising the use of an undercover police officer, there had been a reasonable suspicion that an offence had been committed. The authorisation decisions had contained relevant reasoning and the principle of ultima ratio had been followed. Given the hidden nature of the crime under investigation, and as it had concerned an offence targeting minors, it had been justified and proportionate to use an undercover police officer. Such offences were often committed in a manner that made their discovery complicated, and offenders were likely to try to eliminate any kind of evidence of the offences. 14. The court concluded that the use of an undercover police officer had been lawful, and that the evidence thereby obtained was admissible. 15. As to the substance of the conversations between the applicant and “Marleen12”, after examining the content of the chats, the court found that the police officer had not incited the applicant in any manner. The applicant had initiated the conversations and he had taken all the initiative in maintaining them. 16. Thereafter, on the basis of the manner in which the website in question operated, the pseudonym that the undercover officer had used and the content of the chats between the applicant and the police officer, the Harju County Court found that the applicant must indeed have thought that he was chatting to a 
12-year-old girl. The court noted that the applicant, as a frequent user of the website, must have been aware that the site did not require confirmation that the person accessing it was an adult. The witnesses (who maintained the server and the website) also confirmed at the court hearing that the portal was not intended only for adults. The court also noted that the applicant had used his own age in his username and thus should have assumed that the other person had done the same. Therefore, the court did not find plausible the applicant’s claims that in his opinion he had been playing a role-playing game and had believed that the person behind the computer had not been an underaged girl, but an adult with similar role-play interests. On the basis of the content of the conversations, the court found that the applicant had tried to arouse the interest of the undercover police officer, whom he had believed was a 12-year-old girl named Marleen, in topics of a sexual nature. 17. The applicant appealed. He argued that there had been no prior information about his possible criminal behaviour. He noted that the criminal proceedings against him had been initiated only after the police officer had incited him to commit an offence. He concluded that the secret surveillance authorisations had been issued not to target him specifically, but to incite “sexual enticers of [children] under 14 years old” to commit offences. The police had entered the chatroom with a specific purpose – to lure those who took an interest in children under 14 years old into conversation. The username “Marleen12” had been chosen deliberately to provoke people to have a conversation. 18. On 10 June 2021 the Tallinn Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the first-instance judgment. 19. The Tallinn Court of Appeal agreed with the reasoning of the Harju County Court that the extracts of the conversations between the applicant and the undercover police officer did not indicate that the officer using the username “Marleen12” had in any way provoked the applicant to talk about sexual topics. The court found that it was clear from the extracts that the applicant was the one who had always initiated the conversations about sexual topics and that when the police officer posing as “Marleen12” had remained passive, the applicant had urged her to talk and ask about sex and express her sexual desires, and the undercover police officer had mostly given short answers in response. 20. The Court of Appeal found that the use of the police officer had not been aimed at inciting the applicant to commit a criminal offence, but verifying information received by the police indicating that various persons had used certain websites to engage in chats of a sexual nature with minors under the age of 14 and had sent them files containing sexual content. To that end, criminal proceedings under Article 179 § 1 of the Criminal Code had been initiated. 21. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law. He repeated his arguments about having been incited to commit an offence (see paragraph 17 above). He added that the fact that he had initiated the conversations about
sex-related topics and that the police officer had remained passive in those chats was irrelevant, as it was in any event illogical, in the context of enticement, that the minor himself or herself would have started conversations on sexual topics. The incitement stemmed from the fact that the police officer had assumed the role of a minor and had chosen a username which had led him to believe that it was a minor who was engaging in the chat. 22. On 17 August 2021 the Supreme Court decided not to examine the applicant’s appeal on points of law and his conviction became final. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE
Relevant domestic law
23. Article 179 § 1 of the Criminal Code provides that handing over, displaying or knowingly making pornographic works or reproductions thereof available in some other way to a person under the age of 14, or showing sexual abuse to such a person, engaging in sexual intercourse in the presence of such a person or knowingly sexually enticing such a person in any other manner, is punishable by a fine or up to three years’ imprisonment. 24. Article 1269 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that the term “undercover agent” means a person who uses a different identity to collect information for the reasons mentioned in Article 1262 §§ 1 (1), (3) or (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 25. In so far as is relevant, Article 1262 §§ 1 (1) and (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provide that the Police and Border Guard Board may conduct a secret surveillance operation for the following reasons: if there is a need to collect information about the preparation of a criminal offence, for the purpose of detecting or preventing that offence; or if there is a need to collect information about a criminal offence, in the context of criminal proceedings. 26. Article 1262 § 2 provides that a secret surveillance operation can be conducted for the reasons mentioned in Article 1262 §§ 1 (1) and (4), provided that the case concerns a criminal offence mentioned in, among other things, Article 179 of the Criminal Code. 27. Article 1269 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure adds that authorisation to use an undercover agent must be granted by the prosecutor’s office in writing. The authorisation is granted for up to six months and the time-limit in question may be extended by up to six months at a time. Relevant domestic case-law
28. In judgment no. 3-1-1-110-04 of 2 December 2004, the Supreme Court explained that several offences required the person simulating an offence (the agent provocateur) to be the more active party in initiating contact (for example, in the case of buying narcotic drugs), and that his or her actions could not be limited to mere passive investigation. However, it was understandable that the actions of the person simulating an offence could not be unlimited and without legal restrictions. For example, it was impermissible to incite a person to commit an offence in circumstances where that person had absolutely no prior intention to do so and the investigating authorities had no prior information about his or her possible criminal behaviour. In order to assess whether the incitement to commit an offence was permissible or not, criteria such as the basis of the initial suspicion against the accused (for example, the credibility of the source) and the seriousness of the offence (for example, whether the offence was a minor offence or a serious criminal offence) had to be taken into account, as well as how and how much the agent provocateur influenced the person in question (for example, luring him or her with large sums of money or threatening him or her, or outlining courses of action which he or she could choose to take). It was also necessary to take into account that person’s own readiness to act and the actions which he or she carried out of his or her own accord – in other words, the extent of his or her individual participation (whether he or she performed certain tasks without the leadership and initiation of the agent provocateur, and so on). In doing so, it was important to note that these were not individual and independent evaluation criteria, and all the above-mentioned circumstances had to be weighed up as part of an overall assessment. 29. The above reasoning was repeated and referred to in judgment 
no. 1-16-1036 of 1 December 2017 of the Supreme Court. Relevant international material
30. The Council of Europe Convention on the Protection of Children against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse (“the Lanzarote Convention”) entered into force on 1 July 2010, was ratified by Estonia on 11 November 2016 and entered into force with respect to Estonia on 1 March 2017. It lists various forms of “sexual exploitation and sexual abuse of children”, compelling each Party to that Convention to take necessary legislative or other measures to ensure the criminalisation of such exploitation and abuse. One of those acts – solicitation of children for sexual purposes – is listed in Article 23 of that Convention, which provides as follows:
Article 23 – Solicitation of children for sexual purposes
“Each Party shall take the necessary legislative or other measures to criminalise the intentional proposal, through information and communication technologies, of an adult to meet a child who has not reached the age set in application of Article 18, paragraph 2, for the purpose of committing any of the offences established in accordance with Article 18, paragraph 1.a, or Article 20, paragraph 1.a, against him or her, where this proposal has been followed by material acts leading to such a meeting.”
31. The relevant parts of the Explanatory Report to the Lanzarote Convention provide as follows:
Article 23 – Solicitation of children for sexual purposes
“155. Article 23 introduces a new offence in the Convention which is not present in other existing international instruments in the field. The solicitation of children for sexual purposes is more commonly known as ‘grooming’. The negotiators felt it was essential for the Convention to reflect the recent but increasingly worrying phenomenon of children being sexually harmed in meetings with adults whom they had initially encountered in cyberspace, specifically in Internet chat rooms or game sites. 156. The term ‘grooming’ refers to the preparation of a child for sexual abuse, motivated by the desire to use the child for sexual gratification. It may involve the befriending of a child, often through the adult pretending to be another young person, drawing the child into discussing intimate matters, and gradually exposing the child to sexually explicit materials in order to reduce resistance or inhibitions about sex. The child may also be drawn into producing child pornography by sending compromising personal photos using a digital camera, web-cam or phone-cam, which provides the groomer with a means of controlling the child through threats. Where a physical meeting is arranged the child may be sexually abused or otherwise harmed. 157. The negotiators felt that simply sexual chatting with a child, albeit as part of the preparation of the child for sexual abuse, was insufficient in itself to incur criminal responsibility. A further element was needed. Article 23, therefore, requires Parties to criminalise the intentional ‘proposal of an adult to meet a child who has not reached the age set in application of Article 18 paragraph 2’ for the purpose of committing any of the offences established in accordance with Article 18 paragraph 1 a or Article 20 paragraph 1 a against him or her. Thus the relationship-forming contacts must be followed by a proposal to meet the child. 158. All the elements of the offence must be committed intentionally. In addition, the ‘purpose’ of the proposal to meet the child for committing any of the specified offences needs to be established before criminal responsibility is incurred. 159. The offence can only be committed ‘through the use of information and communication technologies’. Other forms of grooming through real contacts or non-electronic communications are outside the scope of the provision. In view of the particular danger inherent in the use of such technologies due to the difficulty of monitoring them the negotiators wished to focus the provision exclusively on the most dangerous method of grooming children which is through the Internet and by using mobile phones to which even very young children increasingly now have access. 160. In addition to the elements specified above the offence is only complete if the proposal to meet ‘has been followed by material acts leading to such a meeting’. This requires concrete actions, such as, for example, the fact of the perpetrator arriving at the meeting place.”
THE LAW
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
32. The applicant complained that he, a person who had had no criminal record prior to the secret surveillance operation, had been unlawfully entrapped online in violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...”
Admissibility
33. The Government, relying on the same reasons as those advanced as regards the merits of the case, argued that the complaint was manifestly 
ill-founded. 34. The applicant disagreed. 35. The Court notes that this complaint is neither manifestly ill-founded nor inadmissible on any other grounds listed in Article 35 of the Convention. It must therefore be declared admissible. MeritsThe parties’ observations

(a)   The applicant
36. The applicant asserted that the criminal investigation had been initiated on the basis of general information and without any specific knowledge of any identified individuals who were having chats with minors. Thus, the criminal investigation had been initiated with the clear aim of inciting people and collecting information on persons who might entice children under 14 years old. 37. The applicant stated that prior to the secret surveillance operation in question he had not had any criminal record and had not been suspected of any offence. He stated that the pseudonym “Marleen12” used by the undercover police officer – which clearly suggested that the person using that name was a minor – had obviously been chosen to incite him. 38. The criminal proceedings against him had been initiated only after such incitement. 39. The applicant did not submit any observations on how the conversations with the police officer using the name “Marleen12” had been conducted. (b)   The Government
40. The Government argued that the facts of the case revealed no issues as regards fairness, equality of arms or the adversarial nature of the proceedings against the applicant, or as regards manifest and flagrant arbitrariness in those proceedings. The Government addressed both the substantive and procedural tests for incitement. 41. The Government noted that two sets of criminal proceedings were relevant in the context of the present case. Initially, on 19 September 2019 criminal proceedings had been initiated on the basis of information received by the police earlier that year indicating that various persons had used certain websites to engage in chats of a sexual nature with minors under the age of 14 and had sent them files containing sexual content. Next, in the course of those proceedings, a secret surveillance operation authorised under Article 1269 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had been conducted from 8 October 2019 to 8 December 2019. The Government agreed that the police officer had first entered the chatroom in question with no prior knowledge of or suspicions regarding the applicant. 42. During the operation, a person using the username “m41tln” had sexually enticed a fictional 12-year-old girl called Marleen (who had actually been an undercover officer using the pseudonym “Marleen12”) via private messages sent on that website. On the basis of that information, separate criminal proceedings had been initiated on 17 November 2019. The object of those proceedings had been to find out whether the person using the username “m41tln” had committed the criminal offence of sexual enticement of a minor. That person had turned out to be the applicant. Thus, the applicant’s own behaviour had given rise to a concrete suspicion against him and the criminal proceedings against him had been initiated on the basis of the actions he had carried out while using the username “m41tln”. 43. As to the use of the undercover officer, the Government argued that such a course of action had been justified and proportionate, given the hidden nature of the offence in question and the fact that it had been taking place online. The applicant had been able to question the existence and lawfulness of the authorisation to carry out that secret surveillance operation, and to challenge the admission in evidence of the transcripts resulting from the operation. The Harju County Court had addressed the applicant’s arguments after familiarising itself with the secret surveillance file. 44. The Government emphasised that the applicant had not questioned the Harju County Court’s conclusions about the lawfulness of the authorisation and the use of the police officer in his subsequent appeals. In the Government’s opinion, the applicant could not therefore complain of the unlawfulness of the secret surveillance operation or about the police officer’s presence in the chatroom in the proceedings at hand. Thus, the issue of whether there had been impermissible incitement could be assessed only with reference to the content of the applicant’s conversation with the police officer in the chatroom. 45. The Government further noted that the applicant had been able to challenge the assessment of the transcripts of the chats and to put forward his own interpretation of them, including by raising arguments about improper incitement. The domestic courts had given due consideration to his arguments. There was no reason to depart from their well-reasoned assessment. 46. According to the Government, there was nothing in the present case to indicate that the applicant had been incited to commit a criminal offence. It was evident from the extracts of the conversations between him and the police officer that the officer had not incited him in any way. It had been the applicant alone who had initiated the conversations and brought up inappropriate topics, including urging “Marleen12” to ask about sex and express her sexual desires. The police had not exceeded the boundaries of essentially passive investigation.

Outcome for Article 6: no_violation