Today, 7 May 2026, marks the deadline for EU Member States to transpose the EU Anti-SLAPP Directive, also known as Daphne’s law. As we mark this landmark, however, the European Anti-SLAPP Monitor shows a fragmented and uneven picture for transposition across Europe, as the deadline is being missed by nearly all Member States.
While the Anti-SLAPP Directive marked a significant step forward in protecting journalists and media from abusive litigation, its implementation at the national level remains alarmingly incomplete. Although there are some positive examples, the majority of states are seriously lagging behind and others have made no progress at all.
Today, Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) partners issue an urgent call to Member States to demonstrate their commitment to media freedom by accelerating their legislative processes and ensuring that national measures fully reflect both the letter and the spirit of the Directive as well as substantive and procedural safeguards set out in in EU and Council of Europe Recommendations. Partial, delayed, or weak implementation will fail to provide effective protection and may allow abusive practices against the press to persist.
Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) are abusive legal actions used by powerful individuals or entities to silence journalists and media organisations by burdening them with costly and time-consuming litigation. By creating a chilling effect and imposing significant financial pressure, such lawsuits directly threaten the media’s ability to cover public interest matters such as corruption, environmental harm, and human rights abuses.
The case of Maltese investigative journalist Daphne Caruana Galicia is one of the clearest cases demonstrating how harmful these actions can be. The investigative journalist faced 48 libel suits at the time of her assassination in 2017, many from powerful figures she investigated. She was killed in reprisal for her work, while her case became a catalyst for anti-SLAPP efforts in Europe and the establishment of the Coalition Against SLAPPs in Europe (CASE).
The EU Anti-SLAPP Directive was adopted in April 2024 to protect journalists, the media, and civil society from such lawsuits, ensuring they can continue their watchdog role without fear of legal intimidation. The willingness of the countries, however, to meaningfully transpose this Directive has proven to be limited. In many Member States, authorities refuse to acknowledge the problem of SLAPPs at the national level. Only a handful of countries have begun to implement it, as the European Anti-SLAPP Monitor shows.
France and Malta stand out as few countries classified as “Partially Implemented.” However, these processes have not been ideal, as Malta’s government’s ‘summary transposition’ through a Legal Notice rather than parliamentary process, was widely criticised by Maltese stakeholders as a ‘missed opportunity’ for a meaningful transposition that does justice to the situation of SLAPP targets in Malta.
A majority of Member States including Belgium, Germany, and Netherlands, have formally “Started” the transposition process. Legislative proposals have been drafted, and in some cases advanced through parliamentary stages. However, in most of these countries, concerns exist about the minimum level of transposition envisioned in the draft laws. Only a few countries have expanded the protection of SLAPP-targets in cases without a cross-border element. This is problematic, as only 8.5% of the European SLAPP cases currently are cross-border. As a result, most individuals targeted by SLAPPs continue to face legal uncertainty and insufficient safeguards.
Among these, the Belgian draft law stands out as one of the more progressive transpositions of the Directive. Its legislative approach goes beyond minimum EU requirements by extending protections to domestic cases and introducing key procedural safeguards, such as early dismissal mechanisms and sanctions against abusive claimants. Yet, important gaps remain, particularly regarding SLAPPs in criminal proceedings, which may still allow certain forms of legal harassment to continue. The expansion of SLAPPs into criminal law is a concern in several other Member States where defamation has not been decriminalised, fearing that the anti-SLAPP safeguards in civil cases will lead litigants to pursue criminal cases instead.
At the same time, several countries, including Italy and Hungary have not yet begun transposition. This raises concerns about significant delays and uneven protection for individuals targeted by abusive litigation across Europe.
In some cases, such as Portugal, limited publicly available information makes it difficult to assess the state of implementation, raising additional concerns about transparency and accountability.
Overall, the findings highlight a clear gap between political commitment and practical implementation. While progress is underway in many Member States, the level of protection against SLAPPs remains inconsistent across Europe as the deadline passes, with potential sweeping effects on journalists and their work of public interest.
As we mark the deadline today, the MFRR calls for effective and urgent transposition of the Directive into the national law, with robust safeguards for media freedom. We encourage member states to implement a broad set of measures that go beyond the limits set in the transposition and include domestic cases within the definition of SLAPPs.
We also want to reiterate the importance of transposing the Directive alongside the requirements of the EU Anti-SLAPP Recommendation that has concurrently been adopted, as well as Council of Europe’s Recommendation countering use of SLAPPs which offers broader protections for journalists, media and civil society. Finally, we call on candidate countries to meaningfully engage in this process and start the application of the Directive as a part of their EU path.
MFRR urges Member States and candidate countries to establish, in consultation with civil society organisations, mechanisms to track SLAPP cases and evaluate the Directive’s effectiveness, as well as support mechanisms to ensure targets of SLAPPs can obtain the legal and financial support they require. Media organisations, civil society, and policymakers must work together to resist SLAPPs and defend public interest journalism.
Moving forward, the European Commission should closely monitor progress and be prepared to take swift infringement action where Member States fall short. The Directive must provide broad protections across the bloc, rather than result in a fragmented landscape where safeguards depend on national borders. This should be done promoting a meaningful engagement with the media and civil society.
The transposition of the Anti-SLAPP Directive is a critical step in safeguarding media freedom and the right to public participation, and the states must ensure timely, effective transposition that will serve media and civil society both nationally and across the EU.
