Ending Gag Lawsuits in Europe Protecting Democracy and Fundamental Rights
Ending Gag Lawsuits in Europe – Protecting Democracy and Fundamental Rights


08 June 2020

No Comments

The problem: gag lawsuits against public interest defenders


The EU must end gag lawsuits used to silence individuals and organisations that hold those in positions of power to account. Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) are lawsuits brought forward by powerful actors (e.g. companies, public officials in their private capacity, high profile persons) to harass and silence those speaking out in the public interest. Typical victims are those with a watchdog role, for instance: journalists, activists, informal associations, academics, trade unions, media organisations and civil society organisations.


Recent examples of SLAPPs include PayPal suing SumOfUs for a peaceful protest outside PayPal’s German headquarters; co-owners of Malta’s Satabank suing blogger Manuel Delia for a blog post denouncing money laundering at Satabank; and Bollore Group suing Sherpa and ReAct in France to stop them from reporting human rights abuses in Cameroon. In Italy more than 6,000 or two-thirds of defamation lawsuits filed against journalists and media outlets annually are dismissed as meritless by a judge. When Maltese journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia was brutally killed, there were 47 SLAPPs pending against her.


SLAPPs are a threat to the EU legal order, and, in particular:

A threat to democracy and fundamental rights. The EU is founded on the rule of law and respect for human rights. SLAPPs impair the right to freedom of expression, to public participation and to assembly of those who speak out in the public interest, and have a chilling effect on the exercise of these rights by the community at large.

  • A threat to access to justice and judicial cooperation. Cross-border judicial cooperation relies on the principles of effective access to justice across the Union and mutual trust between legal systems. That trust must be based on the legally enforceable upholding of common values and minimum standards. To the extent that they distort and abuse the system of civil law remedies, SLAPPs undermine the mutual trust between EU legal systems: member states must be confident that rulings issued by other member states’ courts are not the result of abusive legal strategies and are adopted as the outcome of genuine proceedings.
  • A threat to the enforcement of EU law, including in connection to the internal market and the protection of the EU budget. The effective enforcement of EU law, including the proper functioning of the internal market, depends on the scrutiny of the behaviour of individual entities by the EU, member states and – crucially – informed individuals. Watchdogs, be it media or civil society actors, play a key enforcement role. Therefore, the absence of a system which safeguards public scrutiny is a threat to the enforcement of EU law. The same reasoning applies to the management of EU programmes and budget, which cannot be monitored through the sole vigilance of the European Commission.
  • A threat to freedom of movement. The absence of rules to protect watchdogs from SLAPP has an impact on the exercise of the Treaty’s fundamental freedoms, since it affects the ability of media, civil society organisations and information services providers to confidently operate in jurisdictions where the risk of SLAPPs is higher, and discourages people from working for organisations where they can be the target of SLAPPs.


The solution: an EU set of anti-SLAPP measures

The EU can and must end SLAPPs by adopting the following complementary measures to protect all those affected by SLAPPs:


1. An anti-SLAPP directive
An anti-SLAPP directive is needed to establish a Union-wide minimum standard of protection against SLAPPs, by introducing exemplary sanctions to be applied to claimants bringing abusive lawsuits, procedural safeguards for SLAPP victims, including special motions to contest the admissibility of certain claims and/or rules making the burden shifting to the plaintiff to demonstrate a reasonable probability of succeeding in such claims, as well as other types of preventive measures. The Whistle-Blower Directive sets an important precedent protecting those who report a breach of Union law in a work-related context. Now the EU must ensure a high standard of protection against gag lawsuits for everyone who speaks out – irrespective of the form and the context – in the public interest.


The legal basis for an anti-SLAPP directive is to be found in multiple provisions of the Treaty; for example, Article 114 TFEU on the proper functioning of the internal market, Article 81 TFEU on judicial cooperation and effective access to justice and Article 325 TFEU on combating fraud related to EU programmes and budgets.


2. The reform of Brussels I and Rome II Regulations
Brussels I Regulation (recast) contains rules which grant claimants the ability to choose where to make a claim. This must be amended to end forum shopping in defamation cases, which forces defendants to hire and pay for defence in countries whose legal systems are unknown to them and where they are not based. This is beyond the means of most and falls foul of the principles of fair trial and equality of arms.


Rome II Regulation does not regulate which national law will apply to a defamation case. This allows claimants to select the most favourable substantive law and therefore leads to a race to the bottom. Today, victims may be subject to the lowest standard of freedom of expression applicable to their case.


3. Support all victims of SLAPPs
Funds are needed to morally and financially support all victims of SLAPPs, especially with legal defence. Justice Programme funds should be used to train judges and practitioners, and a system to publicly name and shame the companies that engage in SLAPPs, for example in an EU register, should be created.


Finally, the EU must ensure that the scope of anti-SLAPP measures include everybody affected by SLAPPs, including journalists, activists, trade unionists, academics, digital security researchers, human rights defenders, media and civil society organisations, among others.

This paper was signed by the following 119 organisations

  • Abalone Alliance Safe Energy Clearinghouse
  • Access Info Europe
  • Access Now
  • ACT Alliance Advocacy to the EU
  • ActionAid International
  • Adéquations
  • Amigas de la Tierra
  • Amis de la Terre France
  • ARTICLE 19
  • Association Justice and Environment, z.s.
  • Bruno Manser Fonds
  • CCFD – Terre Solidaire
  • CEE Bankwatch Network
  • Centre for Free Expression
  • Citizens Network Watchdog Poland
  • Civil Liberties Union for Europe
  • Civil Rights Defenders
  • Civil Society Europe
  • Clean Air Action Group (Hungary)
  • Committee to Protect Journalists
  • Common Weal
  • Consumer Association the Quality of Life (EKPIZO)
  • Corporate Europe Observatory
  • Defend Democracy
  • European Digital Rights (EDRi)
  • Electronic Frontier Foundation
  • Environmental Partnership Association
  • ePaństwo Foundation
  • Environmental Paper Network International (EPN)
  • Estonian Forest Aid / Eesti Metsa Abiks
  • ETC Group
  • Eurocadres / Council of European Professional and Managerial Staff
  • European Center for Not-for-Profit Law
  • European Centre for Press and Media Freedom
  • European Civic Forum
  • European Coalition for Corporate Justice
  • European Coordination Via Campesina
  • European Environmental Bureau (EEB)
  • European Federation of Journalists
  • European Federation of Public Service Unions (EPSU)
  • European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC)
  • Fern
  • Fitug
  • Forest Initiatives and Communities
  • Forum Ökologie & Papier
  • FOUR PAWS International
  • Free Press Unlimited
  • Friends of the Earth Europe
  • Friends of the Earth Nuclear Network
  • Friends of the Siberian Forests
  • Fundacja Otwarty Plan
  • Fundacja Strefa Zieleni
  • Global Justice Ecology Project
  • GM Watch
  • Gong
  • Government Accountability Project
  • Green Light Foundation
  • Greenpeace EU Unit
  • Homo Digitalis
  • IFEX
  • Index on Censorship
  • Institute for Sustainable Development
  • Institute of Water Policy
  • International Corporate Accountability Roundtable (ICAR)
  • International Press Institute (IPI)
  • Iraqi Journalists Right Defence Association
  • JEF Europe
  • Jordens Vänner
  • Journalismfund.eu
  • Justice Pesticides
  • Legal Human Academy
  • Maison des Lanceurs d’Alerte
  • Mighty Earth
  • Milieudefensie / Friends of the Earth Netherlands
  • MultiWatch
  • NGO Neuer Weg
  • NGO Shipbreaking Platform
  • Nuclear Consulting Group
  • Nuclear Transparency Watch
  • OGM dangers
  • On ne se taira pas (We will not remain silent)
  • Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP)
  • Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso Transeuropa
  • PEN International
  • Polish Ecological Club Mazovian Branch
  • Polish Ecological Club Pomeranian Branch
  • Polish Institute for Human Rights and Business
  • Protection International
  • Reporters Without Borders
  • Rettet den Regenwald e.V.
  • Salva la Selva
  • Sciences Citoyennes
  • Sherpa
  • Sinergia Animal
  • Society for Threatened Peoples Switzerland
  • SOMO
  • Stowarzyszenie Ekologiczno-Kulturalne Wspólna Ziemia / Common Earth
  • SumOfUs
  • The Daphne Caruana Galizia Foundation
  • The Ethicos Group
  • The Good Lobby
  • The Signals Network
  • Transnational Institute
  • Transparency International EU
  • Umweltinstitut München e.V.
  • Vouliwatch
  • Vrijschrift
  • vzw Climaxi
  • Chceme zdravú krajinu / We want a healthy country
  • WeMove Europe
  • Whistleblower Network Germany
  • Whistleblowing International Network (WIN)
  • WildLeaks / Earth League International
  • Women Engage for a Common Future (WECF)
  • XNet
  • Zielone Wiadomości

Read news by categories:

Related news


Civil society recommendations: how the European Commission can improve the credibility, inclusiveness and impact of the Rule of Law Report


MFRR partners concerned about wave of abusive legal actions against Croatian outlet

Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) partners are highly concerned about the wave of abusive legal actions against Croatian online news outlet Index.hr.


Romania: Filmmakers badly beaten while shooting documentary on illegal logging

The undersigned partners of the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) today express serious concern over the brutal beating of two filmmakers who were shooting a documentary about illegal logging in Romania and call on the country’s prosecutor general and law enforcement authorities to ensure all those responsible are swiftly brought to justice.


MFRR partners welcome European Commission’s Recommendation on protection, safety and empowerment of journalists

The partner organisations in the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) welcome the European Commission’s Recommendation on ensuring the protection, safety and empowerment of journalists and media professionals in the European Union, presented today.


MFRR: EU action needed to tackle spyware abuses after Pegasus revelations

As the European Parliament today debates the Pegasus spyware scandal, the undersigned partners of the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) call for an immediate investigation into the alleged use of the spyware against journalists by Hungarian authorities and urge the strong implementation of new EU rules on the export of cyber-surveillance technology around the world.


Urgent solution needed as Slovenian Press Agency funding crisis passes 250 days

More than 250 days have now passed since the Slovenian Press Agency (STA) last received state funding for carrying out its public service mission from the government of Janez Janša, which currently presides over the Presidency of the Council of the European Union.