Human Rights Challenges in Addressing SLAPPs in Media, NGOs and Journalism in the EU

Free, open public speech and debate are central to democratic governance and rely on individuals and organisations that investigate, report, and hold power to account. This article analyses how Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (hereinafter: SLAPPs) erode those functions by producing chilling effects on investigative journalists and broader civic scrutiny, maps the principal mechanisms through which SLAPPs distort media practice, and offers practical recommendations for researchers, newsrooms, policymakers and explores the challenges SLAPPs pose to media and journalism and seeks practical responses.

Literature Review

To safeguard freedom of expression and information, it is vital that “public watchdogs” (journalists, academics, bloggers, activists, and NGOs) can freely expose corruption, human rights and other violations (Houtert, 2025). SLAPPs aim not for legal victory but to burden critics, including journalists and NGOs, with costly and intimidating litigation. This tactic silences dissent in the EU and stifles public debate, creating a broader chilling effect. SLAPPs often reframe public issues as private legal disputes, typically via libel or defamation claims. SLAPPs generally meet four criteria, including being civil suits targeting public interest communications (Canan et. al, 1988).

The EU’s action on SLAPPs accelerated following the 2017 murder of Maltese journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia (Houtert, 2025; Miyandazi, 2024). While legislative reforms are urgently needed to curb such abuses (Borg-Barthet, 2021), SLAPPs remain an underexplored topic in journalism studies and most of the existing research centres on legal frameworks, overlooking the personal experiences of those targeted (Papadopoulou et. al., 2024).

Media freedom, pluralism, and freedom of expression are protected under Article 11 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has affirmed that freedom of expression is essential to a democratic society in Handyside v UK (app. no. 5493/72, para. 49). Furthermore, states have a positive obligation to protect individuals from third-party interference (UN CESCR, 2017), and businesses must respect human rights globally (UN Guiding Principles, 2012).

(a) The EU Anti-SLAPP Directive

The EU Anti-SLAPP Directive (2024/1069) marks a significant step in protecting journalists and human rights defenders from abusive lawsuits. It came into force on 6 May 2024, and EU Member States are required to transpose it by 7 May 2026 (ENNHRI, 2024). SLAPPs, which aim to silence public participation, infringe fundamental human rights, including freedom of expression, assembly, and association – rights that can only be restricted under strict legal, necessary, proportionate, and non-discriminatory conditions (United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2024). The Directive applies to civil and commercial cases with cross-border implications, meaning that purely domestic cases fall outside its scope. However, the cross-border requirement is interpreted broadly: a case is deemed cross-border unless both parties are domiciled in the same EU Member State and all relevant elements are located there (ENNHRI, 2024).

The Directive also addresses practices such as “forum shopping,” where claimants seek jurisdictions more favourable to their interests (Houtert, 2025). It includes several other key provisions to protect individuals from SLAPPs. It allows for the dismissal of manifestly unfounded claims and shifts the burden of proof to the claimant. Proceedings are accelerated to reduce delays, and victims can access support, including third-party interventions. Claimants who initiate abusive lawsuits may face penalties, and judgments from non-EU courts that are clearly unfounded cannot be recognized. The Directive also establishes a special EU jurisdiction to handle such cases (ENNHRI, 2024).

(b) Recommendation CM/Rec(2024)2 of the Council of Europe on countering SLAPPs

Alarmed by the chilling effect that SLAPPs have on freedom of expression and public participation, the Council of Europe urged Member States to devise comprehensive and effective strategies to counter such lawsuits, as set out in the Recommendation CM/Rec(2024)2 adopted on 5 April 2024 (hereinafter: “Recommendation”). The Recommendation defines a definition of SLAPPs “as legal actions that are threatened, initiated or pursued as a means of harassing or intimidating their target and which seek to prevent, inhibit, restrict or penalise free expression on matters of public interest and the exercise of rights associated with public participation” (Council of Europe, 2024).

Public participation and public interest are interpreted broadly, encompassing everyone’s democratic right to engage in public debate and affairs, online and offline, without fear or discrimination. According to the Recommendation, the notion of “everyone” includes all public watchdogs and contributors to public debate, not only journalists and other media actors, but also civil society organisations, environmental associations and activists, academics and human rights defenders. The Recommendations apply to civil lawsuits, as well as administrative and criminal law contexts, including cases involving legal intimidation tactics. Furthermore, it covers both domestic and other types of SLAPPs, such as cross-border, multiple or coordinated, and SLAPPs targeting anonymous participants (Council of Europe, 2024).

To aid in identifying SLAPPs, the Recommendation provides a non-exhaustive list of ten indicators. These include reference to outstanding features of SLAPPs, such as the exploitation of an imbalance of power, the partial or full unfoundedness of the arguments put forward by the claimant, the request of disproportionate, excessive or unreasonable remedies, and the engagement in delaying tactics. It is accompanied by an Explanatory Memorandum designed to further clarify the context, reasoning and practical examples useful for the understanding and implementation of the Recommendation (Council of Europe, 2024).

Research Questions and Methodology

To examine how national, regional and EU-level protection are applied in practice, this article analyses government data, national courts’ decisions, and Council of Europe reports, resolutions and news articles related to SLAPPs in the EU. The analysis revolves around three main questions: which challenges are national courts facing when dealing with SLAPPs, whether national and EU legislation adequately address these challenges, and how  the CJEU and the ECtHR handle such cases. The aim is to critically assess current obstacles in addressing SLAPPs and evaluate the effectiveness of existing measures. The paper also explores potential solutions for more effective protection against SLAPPs within the EU.

The Challenges of the National Courts

A 2022 study covering 11 European countries found a rising number of SLAPP cases, often without specific domestic legal protections. The Coalition Against SLAPPs in Europe identified 570 such cases across 30 jurisdictions between 2010 and 2021. In response, the European Commission introduced its Anti-SLAPP Directive on 27 April 2022, targeting cross-border civil cases and offering guidance to address domestic SLAPPs (Manko, 2022). Before the adoption of the EU Anti-SLAPP Directive, no specific protections existed against SLAPPs in EU law, and the situation at the national level was similarly inadequate. As of 2022, no EU Member State had enacted comprehensive SLAPP-specific legislation, with only Ireland, Lithuania, and Malta considering such initiatives (European Commission, 2022; Manko, 2022). Since then, Lithuania has amended both its Criminal and Civil Procedure Codes to address SLAPPs, while legislative proposals in Ireland and Malta remain pending (Manko, 2022).

In the absence of tailored legislation, most Member States treat SLAPPs as ordinary civil or criminal cases, subject to general procedural rules. A 2021 comparative study revealed that nearly all EU countries still criminalise defamation, with many imposing harsher penalties for public dissemination or criticism of public officials. Among EU states, only Malta caps civil damages, and only Finland and Sweden prevent legal persons from suing over reputational harm (Bayer et. al., 2021).

(a)          SLAPP Targets Sued in EU Member State’s Courts

Despite the procedural safeguards introduced by the anti-SLAPP Directive, challenges remain. One key issue is that SLAPP targets can still be abusively sued in multiple EU Member States. In particular, if a claim concerns online infringement of personality rights or copyright, the target may be sued in any Member State where the infringing content is accessible. This results from the CJEU’s interpretation of Article 7(2) of the Brussels I bis Regulation No. 1215/2012 (hereinafter Brussels I bis Regulation) in case Gtflix TV v DR (C-251/20), which grants jurisdiction based solely on the accessibility of a content in a Member State. To reduce the number of competent courts and increase predictability, the recast of the Brussels I bis Regulation should replace the accessibility approach to jurisdiction with a “directed activities” approach to jurisdiction in cases of infringement of personality rights and copyright. Another challenge lies in the “manifestly unfounded claims” criterion of the early dismissal mechanism of Article 11 of the Directive which is not clearly defined by the Directive and could result in inconsistent interpretation (Houtert, 2025).

Finally, another obstacle arises from the fact that judgments imposing penalties under Article 15 of the Anti-SLAPP Directive may not be recognised or enforced in non-EU states. The Hague Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters excludes defamation from its scope, leaving SLAPP targets vulnerable in non-EU jurisdictions (Houtert, 2025).

(b)          SLAPP Targets Sued in Courts outside the EU

The Anti-SLAPP Directive also addresses cases initiated in non-EU courts. Under Article 16, Member State courts may refuse recognition and enforcement of such judgments if the proceedings are deemed manifestly ill-founded or abusive, either through a public policy exception or a separate ground for refusal. Applying these grounds, however, may require detailed case analysis and can vary across jurisdictions. Legal certainty could be improved by assessing potential violations of freedom of expression through the criteria developed by the CJEU in Real Madrid (C-633/22) (Houtert, 2025).

Under Article 17(1) of the Anti-SLAPP Directive, SLAPP targets domiciled in the EU can seek damages and recover costs in their home Member State. Courts must first verify that the third-country case was intended to restrict public participation and was unfounded, but these requirements are difficult to prove and can complicate proceedings. Moreover, judgments in favour of SLAPP targets may not be enforceable in third countries unless the claimant has assets in the EU. Article 17(2) permits Member States to limit their jurisdiction while third-country proceedings are ongoing, creating further legal uncertainty (Houtert, 2025).

(c)   SLAPPs as a Challenge before the EU Member States’ National Courts

Courts globally are increasingly recognising the concept and risks of SLAPPs and urging the need for legislative safeguards. Many SLAPPs are facilitated by outdated or vague laws, including incrimination of defamation, slander and insult provisions, and public order laws that fall short of international freedom of expression standards.  Regional and higher courts are either explicitly or implicitly calling for legislative reform. These reforms are aimed at aligning national laws with international human rights obligations, particularly to ensure protection of freedom of expression and public participation. Meanwhile, in the absence of specific anti-SLAPP legislation, courts are resorting to existing procedural remedies such as “abuse of process” or rules against vexatious litigation to dismiss SLAPPs. However, the use of such remedies remains inconsistent. Some courts have focused primarily on the plaintiff’s motivation, while others look at the merit of the case (assessing whether the case has a reasonable chance of success). Courts are also starting to evaluate whether defendants are being sued for engaging in matters of public interest (Columbia University, 2023).

A landmark case addressing SLAPPs is Concita Di Gregorio and Claudia Fusani v Maria Mangano  (Cass. Pen., Sez. 5, 15587/2017), decided by the Supreme Court of Italy. The case involved criminal defamation charges after journalist Claudia Fusani reported that Ms. Mangano was under investigation for having ties to an organised crime group. Earlier court decisions rejected the journalists’ public interest defence and found them guilty. However, the Supreme Court overturned the conviction, affirming that the right to report and criticise was correctly exercised given the public interest at stake (Columbia University, 2023).

This case illustrates the significant burden imposed by SLAPPs, which create legal, financial, and personal strain and threaten the sustainability of independent journalism. Court rulings on litigation costs for SLAPP victims also vary significantly.  While some courts award costs after identifying claims as SLAPPs, others provide no relief, even when the defendant prevails. Despite the lack of dedicated legislation, several courts have managed to provide protection, including by citing SLAPP definitions from other jurisdictions, applied international freedom of expression standards, or invoked abuse of process doctrines. Nevertheless, the responses remain fragmented, highlighting the urgent need for coherent legal reform is clear (Columbia University, 2023).

Does national and EU legislation adequately address these challenges?

Under EU law, states are obligated not only to refrain from engaging in abusive lawsuits but also to actively protect individuals from SLAPPs. These obligations entail the decriminalisation of defamation, the adoption of dedicated anti-SLAPP legislation, and the development of procedural mechanisms to dismiss abusive cases in the absence of such laws. Effective anti-SLAPP frameworks should broadly cover all claims related to public participation, provide for the early dismissal of abusive suits through expedited procedures, and impose financial and procedural penalties on the claimants. They should also address transnational litigation by preventing forum shopping and coordinated legal harassment. Complementary measures such as judicial training, legal aid for victims, and awareness-raising are equally essential (United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2024).

EU private international law has unintentionally facilitated forum shopping in defamation cases. Under Article 7(2) of the Brussels I bis Regulation, plaintiffs can choose between suing in the defendant’s country or in any jurisdiction where the alleged harm occurred. The CJEU has interpreted this provision broadly in cross-border cases Getflix TV v DR (C-251/20) and eDate Advertising and Others (C-509/09), thereby enabling SLAPP claimants to target journalists in multiple jurisdictions. Moreover, because defamation is excluded from the Regulation No. 864/2007 (hereinafter: Regulation Rome II), claimants may select jurisdictions with weaker speech protections, further encouraging “libel tourism”. These loopholes have led to calls for reform of both the Brussels I bis and Regulation Rome II, an issue acknowledged by the European Commission in its Democracy Action Plan (Manko, 2022).

Furthermore, some Member States have started developing national anti-SLAPP models. Belgium has proposed a comprehensive anti-SLAPP law that aligns with both the EU Directive and recommendations from the European Commission and the Council of Europe (Voorhoof, 2025). In Poland, where SLAPPs are frequently used by political actors and state-affiliated companies, Minister of Justice Adam Bodnar has advocated for applying the Directive to both domestic and cross-border cases, as well as for broader reforms such as decriminalizing defamation (Bychawska-Siniarska et. al., 2024).

Despite these initiatives, most EU Member States have not yet transposed the Anti-SLAPP Directive (Montebello, 2023). Experts emphasise that the  Directive should be treated as a minimum standard in addressing SLAPPs. Coordinated efforts between legal experts and advocacy organisations remain critical to ensuring that its provisions translate into effective safeguards for freedom of expression across Europe (Borg-Barthet et. al., 2024).

How do  the CJEU and the ECtHR handle SLAPP cases?

(a)          Practice of the European Court of Justice (CJEU)

Two of EU law’s most fundamental principles, mutual recognition and freedom of speech, are a strong basis to fight SLAPPs.  A key moment came in February 2024 when Advocate General (hereinafter: AG) Maciej Szpunar issued his opinion in the Real Madrid Club de Fútbol v Le Monde (C-633/22) case. This was the first opportunity for the CJEU to address SLAPPs directly, especially in a cross-border context (Milewska et. al., 2024).

Over a decade ago, the French newspaper Le Monde published an article alleging that Real Madrid had hired a doctor linked to doping, implying that the club and its medical staff are involved in doping. In response, Real Madrid and a medical team member filed defamation claims in Spain against the newspaper Le Monde and its journalist, alleging reputational damage. The Spanish court sided with Real Madrid, awarding €390,000 in damages from the publisher, Société Éditrice du Monde, and an additional €33,000 to be paid jointly by the journalist who was the author of the article and the company. Real Madrid sought to enforce the Spanish judgment in France, but in 2020, the Paris Court of Appeal refused enforcement, citing France’s ordre public/public policy clause. The French court ruled that enforcing the judgment could violate French standards of freedom of expression. This triggered a complex judicial standoff, leading the French Court of Cassation to refer seven questions to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (hereinafter: TFEU) (Milewska et. al., 2024).

At the core of the CJEU referral was whether freedom of the press, as protected under the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, qualifies as a fundamental principle. If so, its breach could justify invoking the public policy exception to refuse enforcement of foreign judgments under the Brussels I bis Regulation by France. In his February 2024 opinion, AG Szpunar affirmed that courts in Member States can and should refuse enforcement of foreign judgments that clearly breach freedom of expression. Accordingly, enforcement of rulings that impose  exorbitant damages, meaning damages that can financially cripple individuals or entities, can be legitimately refused as they would create a chilling effect on press freedom (Milewska et. al., 2024).

According to AG Szpunar, damages should be considered “manifestly unreasonable” when a natural person is ordered to pay an amount several times higher than the average salary in their country or , when a legal entity’s existence would be endangered by the enforcement.

CJEU case law permits such exceptions only in extraordinary circumstances. That means that recognition of other Member State’s judgments must be denied if enforcing a judgment would constitute a manifest violation of a fundamental right. AG Szpunar argued that freedom of expression meets this threshold. CJEU has historically interpreted these exceptions narrowly. Broad application of the public policy clause is seen as potentially undermining mutual trust within the EU. Until recently, the CJEU often used a “pro-integration” lens for fundamental rights, prioritising market integration over human rights enforcement (Milewska et. al., 2024).

In its decision, the CJEU confirmed AG Szpunar’s reasoning, emphasising that excessively high defamation damages can breach press freedom and justify refusal to enforce a foreign judgment under the public policy exception in the Brussels I bis Regulation (Peroutka, 2024). CJEU clarified that national courts must refrain from re‑examining the substantive merits of the original decision. However, they must assess whether the awarded damages are manifestly disproportionate to the reputational harm and likely to have a deterrent effect on media freedom in the enforcing state (EAPIL Blog Editorial Team, 2024). CJEU explicitly recognised that freedom of the press, protected by Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights,  constitutes a fundamental right capable of outweighing the principle of mutual recognition in exceptional circumstances (Carcau, 2025). 

(b) Practice of the European Court of Human Rights

The European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter: ECtHR, the Court) recognised SLAPPs for the first time in its judgment on OOO Memo v. Russia (app. no. 2840/10), a civil defamation case filed by a Russian executive body against media company OOO Memo (Schiavon, 2025.; Voorhoof, 2022). The Court ruled that taxpayer-funded public bodies cannot invoke “protection of reputation” under Article 10(2) ECHR to restrict press freedom, marking a sharp departure from its usual balancing of freedom of expression and reputation rights (Voorhoof, 2022). 

This landmark judgment bypassed the proportionality test by declaring that the lawsuit lacked a legitimate aim, rendering it inadmissible from the outset. As a result, similar future cases may be dismissed at an early stage without full examination, enhancing legal certainty and shielding the press from abusive litigation. The ruling echoes earlier concerns raised by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, Dunja Mijatović, who called SLAPPs a serious threat to democratic expression (Mijatović, 2020; Voorhoof, 2022).

a. Freedom of Expression and Its Democratic Foundations under ECtHR’s Case Law

Article 10 of the ECHR protects three core freedoms: the freedom to hold opinions, to receive information and ideas, and to impart them. These rights form a cornerstone of democratic society and are inextricably tied to the rights of peaceful assembly and association protected under Article 11 of the ECHR. According to the ECtHR, the full enjoyment of these rights is a prerequisite for active civic engagement in public affairs (Schiavon, 2025).

Although Article 10 does not establish a general right of access to information, the Court has gradually expanded its scope through an evolutive interpretation. In Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v Hungary (app. no. 18030/11), the Grand Chamber recognised a right of access to state-held information, particularly where such access enables public debate on matters of general interest. This jurisprudence underscores the democratic function of press freedom. In Handyside v United Kingdom (app. no. 5493/72), the Court articulated its foundational view: freedom of expression is vital not just for individual self-fulfilment but for societal progress. This freedom extends to ideas that “offend, shock or disturb,” which are essential to pluralism and tolerance (Schiavon, 2025).

b. Public Interest and Chilling Effect under ECtHR’s Case Law

The ECtHR has recognised in its case law that SLAPPs are inherently designed to stifle scrutiny of matters of public interest. However, defining “public interest” remains challenging. The ECtHR usually assesses it on a case-by-case basis, considering whether the issue significantly affects the community’s well-being or sparks public debate. This notion has been extended to a broad range of topics, including politics, justice, health, and environmental issues (Schiavon, 2025).

SLAPPs can produce a chilling effect, meaning that they discourage others from expressing dissent or criticism. The Court warns that fear of litigation or disproportionate penalties can lead to self-censorship, thereby impairing public debate. Such chilling effects have been referenced in numerous rulings as a serious threat to press freedom. The Court has repeatedly pointed out that the plurality of public debate is damaged when critical voices are silenced (Schiavon, 2025). 

c. Limitations and the Triple Test established by the ECtHR

Freedom of expression is not an absolute right. Relying on the so-called “triple test”, the ECtHR substantially limits the possibility of interferences with the right. Such interferences are allowed only where three cumulative conditions are fulfilled:

1. Be “prescribed by law”, which entails foreseeability, precision and publicity or accessibility and which implies a minimum degree of protection against arbitrariness;
2. Serve a “legitimate aim”. Article 10 § 2 of ECHR lists a series of possible restrictions, including national security and territorial integrity; public safety and prevention of disorder and crime; protection of health and of morals; protection of reputation or rights of others; preventing the disclosure of confidential information and maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. The multiplicity of countervailing interests necessitates careful balancing. 
3. To be “necessary in a democratic society” (Schiavon, 2025).

This “triple test” has become a key analytical framework for the ECtHR. The necessity test involves assessing proportionality and the existence of a pressing social need. Reputation is among the legitimate aims most frequently invoked by claimants, and it is protected under Article 8 of the Convention. However, in Axel Springer AG v Germany, the Court stressed that reputational claims must meet a threshold of seriousness and cannot result from one’s own misconduct (Schiavon, 2025).

d. Balancing Reputation and Expression Under the ECtHR’s Case Law

The ECtHR has developed nuanced criteria to resolve conflicts between rights protected under Articles 8 and 10. These criteria include evaluating the contribution to public debate, the claimant’s public profile, prior conduct, the form and content of the expression, and severity of the penalties imposed (Schiavon, 2025).

Public figures are subject to a higher threshold of tolerance under the Court’s case law. In Lingens v Austria (app. no. 9815/82), the Court held that politicians must accept more criticism due to their public role. Similarly, in Steel and Morris v the United Kingdom (app. no. 68416/01), it extended this principle to large companies involved in public life. Smaller companies, however, may merit greater reputational protection unless they are recipients of public funds. A private person’s life may become a matter of public interest if the person has entered the public scene. Likewise, public figures who voluntarily disclose aspects of their private life to the public may also provoke legitimate public scrutiny (Schiavon, 2025).

e. Expressive Acts and Journalistic Responsibility Under the ECtHR’s Case Law

Article 10 of the ECHR also protects non-verbal expressions, such as images and symbolic actions. The ECtHR has stressed that the manner of expression, not just its content, deserves protection. Colourful or provocative language may be necessary to attract attention to serious issues (Schiavon, 2025).

However, journalists must act in good faith and adhere to professional standards. Distinctions are made between factual claims, which must be verifiable, and value judgments, which should be rooted in a factual basis. A falsehood that harms reputation without justification constitutes defamation, unless the speaker can prove its truth (exceptio veritatis) (Schiavon, 2025).

f.  Sanctions and Their Chilling Effect Under the ECtHR’s Case Law

Penalties and especially criminal sanctions, are scrutinised by the Court  for their potential to limit the right to free expression through their chilling effect. The Court’s case-law has repeatedly acknowledged that the chilling effect of the criminal sanction is particularly dangerous in cases of public interest debate since these measures have far-reaching consequences for those affected by them. In Cumpănă and Mazăre v Romania (app. no. 33348/96), the Grand Chamber ruled that imprisonment for defamation violates Article 10 of the Convention. Similarly, in Kaperzyński v Poland (app. no. 43206/07) , the Court stressed that even civil penalties can deter public-interest journalistic reporting (Schiavon, 2025).

Excessive damages, like those examined in Independent Newspapers v Ireland (app. no. 28199/15) and Tolstoy Miloslavsky v UK (app. no. 18139/91), are likely to suppress media activity. The Court demands that damages for defamation must be proportionate to the harm caused. Civil injunctions, as in Axel Springer AG v Germany (app. no. 39954/08), and orders to reveal sources are also subject to close scrutiny (Schiavon, 2025).

Issues in Current SLAPP Protection Mechanisms and Recommended Reforms

An effective anti‑SLAPP framework requires a calibrated combination of substantive prohibitions, harmonised cross‑border rules, robust procedural gating, judicial trainings, better financial transparency and dedicated support for targeted persons. These measures, implemented coherently at national and EU levels, will better protect public‑interest expression while preserving legitimate access to courts. Recommended reforms are the following:

·   Member State legislation should explicitly cover purely domestic SLAPPs and the strategic misuse of criminal prosecution, including a prohibition on criminal defamation and, where necessary, substitution with narrowly circumscribed civil remedies that respect proportionality and freedom of expression.

·   Harmonisation of private international law is required. Amendments to Brussels I should adopt a “directed activities” jurisdictional test for online reputational claims instead of the accessibility model. Rome II should be clarified or revised to prevent choice‑of‑law shopping that exploits weaker speech protections.

·   Courts need statutory early‑dismissal tools are needed. EU law and national laws should define “manifestly unfounded” claims and set objective, evidence‑based thresholds (for example, absence of an arguable legal basis or pursuit of disproportionate remedies). Early dismissal must be mandatory, time‑limited, and coupled with restrictions on intrusive discovery before admissibility is determined.

·   Judicial capacity building is essential. National and EU training modules for judges, prosecutors, and court staff should cover SLAPP indicators, public‑interest doctrine and proportionality consistent with ECtHR and CJEU case law. A practical toolkit with model orders on early dismissal, cost‑shifting and evidence preservation should be distributed to courts.

·   Strengthened procedural safeguards are needed for SLAPP targets. Domestic courts should have power to stay parallel foreign proceedings, award full compensatory costs and punitive sanctions for abusive litigation, and provide expedited appeals for SLAPP determinations. Protective injunctive measures must safeguard journalistic source confidentiality during admissibility proceedings.

·   Access to justice must be facilitated through emergency funding and organised pro bono panels to secure early legal representation for targets. Recognition and refusal standards for foreign SLAPP‑related judgments should adopt the criteria in Real Madrid (C‑633/22), with guidance for assessing disproportionate damages and chilling effects. An EU register of refusals on SLAPP grounds should inform practice and deter libel tourism.

·   Financial transparency and deterrence reforms on EU and national level should require early disclosure of corporate beneficial ownership and litigation funding. Courts must be authorised to order security for costs and to freeze assets where there is a clear risk of procedural abuse.

·   Preventive and supportive measures for journalists and civil society should be prioritised. Establish EU‑funded emergency legal aid with national co‑financing, independent defence funds covering immediate litigation and psychological support, and an expanded, resourced EU monitoring mechanism with anonymised reporting, impact metrics and best‑practice dissemination. Support interdisciplinary, longitudinal research into SLAPPs’ chilling effects on media and civil society.

Conclusion

The EU Anti-SLAPP Directive represents important progress, but its cross-border focus, reliance on national transposition, and vague standards leave significant gaps that permit forum shopping, inconsistent judicial responses, and continued use of criminal or purely domestic suits as intimidation tools.

Effective protection requires a layered response: broadened national implementation to cover domestic and criminal SLAPPs, harmonised private‑international‑law rules to curb libel tourism, mandatory early‑dismissal procedures with meaningful cost‑shifting, and robust support for targets through emergency legal aid and judicial training. Combined with transparency measures for claimants and litigation funders and clearer standards for refusing recognition of manifestly disproportionate foreign judgments, these reforms will restore predictability, deter abusive litigation, and protect the public interest.

Unless states and EU institutions act swiftly and coherently, SLAPPs will continue to erode press freedom and public accountability. Law reform, procedural innovation, and sustained institutional support are not optional extras but essential safeguards for a resilient democratic public sphere.

Bibliography

Bayer, J., Bard, P., Vosyliūtė, L., & Luk, N. C. (2021). Strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP) in the European Union: A comparative study. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4092013

Borg-Barthet, J., & Farrington, F. (2024). The EU’s anti-SLAPP directive: A partial victory for rule of law advocacy in Europe. German Law Journal, 25(6), 840–855. https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2024.51

Borg-Barthet, J., Lobina, B., & Zabrocka, M. (2021). The Use of SLAPPs to Silence Journalists, NGOs and Civil Society. European Parliament. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2021/694782/IPOL_STU(2021)694782_EN.pdf

Bychawska-Siniarska, D., & Nowicka, Z. (2024). From zero to hero: Once grappling with SLAPPs, Poland could now be a model for how to fight them. Verfassungsblog, 2024/9/04. https://doi.org/10.59704/b964d8b8de9bdc20

Canan, P., & Pring, G. W. (1988). Strategic lawsuits against public participation. Social Problems, 35(5), 506–519. https://doi.org/10.2307/800612

Carcau, A. (2025, April 29). The Greenpeace lawsuit in Dutch courts: a landmark case and the first real test for the EU Anti-SLAPP Directive. The Official UNIO Blog. https://officialblogofunio.com/author/uniocedu/

Columbia University. (2023). Special collection of the case law on freedom of expression. Global Freedom of Expression. https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/GFoE-Article19-SLAPPs-paper.pdf

Council of Europe. (2024, April 5). Council of Europe adopts recommendation on countering the use of SLAPPs. https://www.coe.int/en/web/freedom-expression/-/council-of-europe-adopts-recommendation-on-countering-the-use-of-slapps

EAPIL Blog Editorial Team. (2024, November 19). CJEU clarifies the influence of fundamental rights on the operation of the public policy exception. EAPIL. https://eapil.org/2024/11/19/cjeu-clarifies-the-influence-of-fundamental-rights-on-the-operation-of-the-public-policy-exception/

ENNHRI – European Network of National Human Rights Institutions. (2024, May 28). The Council of Europe and European Union strengthen protection against abusive lawsuits silencing critical voices. https://ennhri.org/news-and-blog/the-council-of-europe-and-european-union-strengthen-protection-against-abusive-lawsuits-silencing-critical-voices/

European Court of Human Rights. (1976). Handyside v. the United Kingdom, App. No. 5493/72, Judgment of 7 December 1976. ECLI:CE:ECHR:1976:1207JUD000549372. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57499

European Court of Human Rights. (1986). Lingens v. Austria, App. No. 9815/82, Judgment of 8 July 1986. ECLI:CE:ECHR:1986:0708JUD000981582. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57523

European Court of Human Rights. (1995). Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom, App. No. 18139/91, Judgment of 13 July 1995. ECLI:CE:ECHR:1995:0713JUD001813991. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57947

European Court of Human Rights. (2004). Cumpănă and Mazăre v. Romania, App. No. 33348/96, Grand Chamber Judgment of 17 December 2004. ECLI:CE:ECHR:2004:1217JUD003334896. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-61127

European Court of Human Rights. (2005). Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, App. No. 68416/01, Judgment of 15 February 2005. ECLI:CE:ECHR:2005:0215JUD006841601. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-68224

European Court of Human Rights. (2012). Axel Springer AG v. Germany, App. No. 39954/08, Judgment of 7 February 2012. ECLI:CE:ECHR:2012:0207JUD003995408. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-109034

European Court of Human Rights. (2012). Kaperzyński v. Poland, App. No. 43206/07, Judgment of 3 April 2012. ECLI:CE:ECHR:2012:0403JUD004320607. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-110171

European Court of Human Rights. (2016). Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v. Hungary, App. No. 18030/11, Grand Chamber Judgment of 8 November 2016. ECLI:CE:ECHR:2016:1108JUD001803011. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-167828

European Court of Human Rights. (2017). Independent Newspapers (Ireland) Limited v. Ireland, App. No. 28199/15, Judgment of 15 June 2017. ECLI:CE:ECHR:2017:0615JUD002819915. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-189201

European Court of Human Rights. (2022). OOO Memo v. Russia, App. No. 2840/10, Judgment of 15 March 2022. ECLI:CE:ECHR:2022:0315JUD000284010. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-216179

European Court of Justice of the European Union. (2011). Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 October 2011, eDate Advertising GmbH and Others v X and Société MGN LIMITED, Joined Cases C-509/09 and C-161/10. ECLI:EU:C:2011:685. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A62009CJ0509

European Court of Justice of the European Union. (2021). Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 December 2021, Gtflix TV v DR, Case C-251/20. ECLI:EU:C:2021:1036. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A62020CJ0251

European Court of Justice of the European Union. (2024). Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 October 2024, Real Madrid Club de Fútbol and AE v EE and Société Éditrice du Monde SA, Case C-633/22. ECLI:EU:C:2024:843. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A62022CJ0633

European Parliament & Council of the European Union. (2007). Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II). Official Journal of the European Union, L 199, 40–49. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2007/864/oj

European Parliament & Council of the European Union. (2012). Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast). Official Journal of the European Union, L 351, 1–32. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2012/1215/oj/eng

European Parliament & Council of the European Union. (2024). Directive (EU) 2024/1069 of 11 April 2024 on protecting persons who engage in public participation from manifestly unfounded claims or abusive court proceedings (‘Strategic lawsuits against public participation’). Official Journal of the European Union, L 1069. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1069/oj/eng

European Union. (2022). A proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council no. 2024/1069 of 11 April 2024 on protecting persons who engage in public participation from manifestly unfounded or abusive court proceedings (“Strategic lawsuits against public participation”) https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52022SC0117

Manko, R. (2022). EU legislation in progress: Strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs). https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2022/733668/EPRS_BRI(2022)733668_EN.pdf

Mijatović, D. (2020, October 27). Time to take action against SLAPPs. https://www.coe.int/en/web/commissioner/-/time-to-take-action-against-slapps

Milewska, P., & Nowicka, Z. (2024). The ball is in the game. Verfassungsblog. https://doi.org/10.59704/036d42efb824dade

Montebello, S. (2023, June 26). EU member states “disappointingly unambitious” on anti-SLAPP law. The Shift News. https://theshiftnews.com/2023/06/26/eu-member-states-disappointingly-unambitious-on-anti-slapp-law/

Papadopoulou, L., & Maniou, T. A. (2024). “SLAPPed” and censored? Legal threats and challenges to press freedom and investigative reporting. Journalism. https://doi.org/10.1177/14648849241242181

Peroutka, H. (2024, October 25). Decision of the CJEU in the case C-633/22 Real Madrid v Le Monde on the refusal of recognition of foreign judgments: Implications beyond the freedom of the press. BLOG PETERKA PARTNERS. https://blog.peterkapartners.com/decision-of-the-cjeu-in-the-case-c-633-22-real-madrid-v-le-monde-on-the-refusal-of-recognition-of-foreign-judgments-implications-beyond-the-freedom-of-the-press/

Schiavon, A. (2025). ECtHR case law for anti-SLAPP defense.  Fundación Internacional Baltasar Garzón –FIBGAR. Retrieved July 31, 2025, from https://static1.squarespace.com/static/6207bcea748e2b774b938d66/t/65ce0f706964f565961d1635/1708003185780/Etchr+case+law+for+anti-slapp+defense.pdf

Supreme Court of Italy, Criminal Division V. (2017). Concita Di Gregorio and Claudia Fusani v. Maria Mangano, Cass. Pen., Sez. 5, No. 15587/2017, Judgment of 29 March 2017. https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/the-case-of-concita-di-gregorio-and-claudia-fusani-v-maria-mangano/

United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. (2024). The impact of SLAPPs on human rights & how to respond. https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/publications/briefer-the-impact-slapps-hr-how-resond.pdf

Voorhoof, D. (2022, April). OOO Memo v. Russia: ECtHR prevents defamation claims by executive bodies. Strasbourg Observers. https://strasbourgobservers.com/2022/04/01/ooo-memo-v-russia-ecthr-prevents-defamation-claims-by-executive-bodies/

Voorhoof, D. (2025, February 12). Belgium: A model for the transposition of the EU anti-SLAPP directive. Inforrm’s Blog. https://inforrm.org/2025/02/12/belgium-a-model-for-the-transposition-of-the-eu-anti-slapp-directive-dirk-voorhoof/