Sittings · Compare
What changed
DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION
on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on protecting persons who engage in public participation from manifestly unfounded or abusive court proceedings (“Strategic lawsuits against public participation”)
(COM(2022)0177 – C90161/2022 – 2022/0117(COD))
(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)
The European Parliament,
– having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2022)0177),
– having regard to Article 294(2) and Article 81(2)(f) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C90161/2022),
– having regard to Article 294(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
– having regard to the reasoned opinions submitted, within the framework of Protocol No 2 on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, by the Czech Senate and the French Senate, asserting that the draft legislative act does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity,
– having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 26 October 2022,
– having regard to Rule 59 of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to the opinions of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and the Committee on Culture and Education,
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A9-0223/2023),
1. Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out;
2. Suggests that the act be cited as 'the Tiemo Wölken-... Directive on protecting persons who engage in public participation from manifestly unfounded or abusive court proceedings (“Strategic lawsuits against public participation”)';
3. Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it replaces, substantially amends or intends to substantially amend its proposal;
4. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.
Amendment 1
Proposal for a directive
Citation 2 a (new)
Amendment 2
Proposal for a directive
Recital 2
Amendment 3
Proposal for a directive
Recital 3 a (new)
Amendment 4
Proposal for a directive
Recital 3 b (new)
Amendment 5
Proposal for a directive
Recital 4
Amendment 6
Proposal for a directive
Recital 5
Amendment 7
Proposal for a directive
Recital 6
Amendment 8
Proposal for a directive
Recital 7
Amendment 9
Proposal for a directive
Recital 7 a (new)
Amendment 10
Proposal for a directive
Recital 9
Amendment 11
Proposal for a directive
Recital 10
Amendment 12
Proposal for a directive
Recital 11
Amendment 13
Proposal for a directive
Recital 12
Amendment 14
Proposal for a directive
Recital 13
Amendment 15
Proposal for a directive
Recital 15
Amendment 16
Proposal for a directive
Recital 15 a (new)
Amendment 17
Proposal for a directive
Recital 16
Amendment 18
Proposal for a directive
Recital 18
Amendment 19
Proposal for a directive
Recital 19 a (new)
Amendment 20
Proposal for a directive
Recital 20
Amendment 21
Proposal for a directive
Recital 20 a (new)
Amendment 22
Proposal for a directive
Recital 20 b (new)
Amendment 23
Proposal for a directive
Recital 20 c (new)
Amendment 24
Proposal for a directive
Recital 22
Amendment 25
Proposal for a directive
Recital 22 a (new)
Amendment 26
Proposal for a directive
Recital 22 b (new)
Amendment 27
Proposal for a directive
Recital 23
Amendment 28
Proposal for a directive
Recital 26
Amendment 29
Proposal for a directive
Recital 29
Amendment 30
Proposal for a directive
Recital 30
Amendment 31
Proposal for a directive
Recital 31
Amendment 32
Proposal for a directive
Recital 31 a (new)
Amendment 33
Proposal for a directive
Recital 32
Amendment 34
Proposal for a directive
Recital 32 a (new)
Amendment 35
Proposal for a directive
Recital 33
Amendment 36
Proposal for a directive
Recital 33 a (new)
Amendment 37
Proposal for a directive
Recital 33 b (new)
Amendment 38
Proposal for a directive
Recital 34
Amendment 39
Proposal for a directive
Recital 34 a (new)
Amendment 40
Proposal for a directive
Recital 34 b (new)
Amendment 41
Proposal for a directive
Recital 34 c (new)
Amendment 42
Proposal for a directive
Recital 34 d (new)
Amendment 43
Proposal for a directive
Recital 34 e (new)
Amendment 44
Proposal for a directive
Recital 36
Amendment 45
Proposal for a directive
Recital 36 a (new)
Amendment 46
Proposal for a directive
Recital 36 b (new)
Amendment 47
Proposal for a directive
Recital 36 c (new)
Amendment 48
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Amendment 49
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1
Amendment 50
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 a (new)
Amendment 51
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Amendment 52
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a
Amendment 53
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point b
Amendment 54
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point d
Amendment 55
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point e
Amendment 56
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point e a (new)
Amendment 57
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – introductory part
Amendment 58
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point -a (new)
Amendment 59
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point c
Amendment 60
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point c a (new)
Amendment 61
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point a
Amendment 62
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 3
Amendment 63
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 a (new)
Amendment 64
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 b (new)
Amendment 65
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1
Amendment 66
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 1
Amendment 67
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 2
Amendment 68
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 1
Amendment 69
Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 1
Amendment 70
Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Amendment 71
Proposal for a directive
Article 16 a (new)
Amendment 72
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 1
Amendment 73
Proposal for a directive
Chapter V a (new)
Amendment 74
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 a (new)
Amendment 75
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 b (new)
Amendment 76
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 c (new)
Amendment 77
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 d (new)
Amendment 78
Proposal for a directive
Chapter V b (new)
Amendment 79
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 e (new)
Amendment 80
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 f (new)
Amendment 81
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 g (new)
Amendment 82
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 h (new)
Amendment 83
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 i (new)
Amendment 84
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 j (new)
Amendment 85
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 k (new)
Amendment 86
Proposal for a directive
Article 20 – paragraph 1
Amendment 87
Proposal for a directive
Article 21 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Amendment 88
Proposal for a directive
Article 21 – paragraph 1 a (new)
24.5.2023
OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE ON CIVIL LIBERTIES, JUSTICE AND HOME AFFAIRS
for the Committee on Legal Affairs
on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on protecting persons who engage in public participation from manifestly unfounded or abusive court proceedings (“Strategic lawsuits against public participation”)
(COM(2022)0177 – C90161/2022 – 2022/0117(COD))
Rapporteur for opinion (*): Ramona Strugariu
(*) Associated committee – Rule 57 of the Rules of Procedure
SHORT JUSTIFICATION
Strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) are not a new problem to the European Union. The occurrence of such lawsuits has been on a constant rise in Europe, as documented by several independent organisations monitoring the phenomenon. Research and awareness on the matter grew higher following the assassination of the Maltese investigative journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia, in October 2017. At the time of her death, Daphne Caruana Galizia had 48 such lawsuits intended against her. These abusive proceedings continued even after her death, when they were passed on to her family, causing enormous financial and psychological burdens to their targets.
Research done by the Coalition Against SLAPPs in Europe (CASE) has highlighted the sustained increase in the number of SLAPPs since 2016, with figures increasing by over 400 % in 2021. The CASE research underlines the scale of the problem highlighting that in Croatia alone, by April 2021, they had identified nearly 1000 active lawsuits against media. The research presented various examples from different Member States such as Poland, France, Italy, Malta or Slovenia, underlining the European dimension of the issue and the need for a common European solution.
SLAPPs may be either fully or partially unfounded claims. However, the two common points designating SLAPPs are the abusive use of the judicial process and their use in relation to public participation. SLAPPs are therefore brought for purposes other than genuinely asserting, vindicating or exercising a right and rather aim to prevent, restrict or penalise public participation. Through the abusive use of the judicial system, SLAPPs not only produce significant financial and psychological damage to their victims, but also restrict access to justice to other citizens, by overburdening the judicial system. Such claims are often characterised by an imbalance of power, but not always. The existence of multiple proceedings, the disproportionate nature of the claim, as well as the use of dilatory and vexatious tactics are further indications of the abusive nature of SLAPPs. The approach chosen is to create a clear definition that includes both manifestly unfounded claims as well as claims that hold some legal merits, but which entail the aforementioned characteristics and lead to an abuse of rights.
The victims of SLAPPs cover a wide variety of subjects. Victims may be both natural or legal persons, ranging from journalists and media outlets, to activists, editors, human rights defenders and even single private individuals. The common point of these categories is their engagement in public participation. SLAPPs may be used directly or indirectly against anyone engaged in public participation and may also target subjects involved in preparatory or supporting activities thereof. This Directive must offer the appropriate protection for all such categories.
In order to address the issue in an efficient and comprehensive manner, the definition of public participation must also be broadened, as to include activities carried out in the exercise of various rights, besides that of freedom of expression and information. Practical situations have demonstrated that the definition should include a non-exhaustive list, covering among others the freedoms of association and assembly, as well as academic freedoms. Given the high number of SLAPPs against journalists and media workers, it is essential that media pluralism and media freedom are covered by the definition of what constitutes a matter of public interest linked to the engagement in public participation.
In order for this Directive to produce the desired effect of protecting those engaging in public participation from abusive litigation, its provisions must outline several procedural safeguards, including an effective early dismissal mechanism, available either ex officio or at the application of the defendant. The admissibility of an early dismissal mechanism cannot be subject to a higher threshold than that of other procedural safeguards. The Directive must not discriminate between different categories of SLAPPs. To achieve this, the mechanism shall be broadened and made accessible to all victims of SLAPPs. The proposed approach with regard to procedural safeguards, and to the early dismissal mechanism in particular, is to abandon the Commission dichotomy between manifestly unfounded and abusive cases.
For the purposes of an effective early dismissal mechanism, the burden of proof for the court assessment on the matter shall lie with the claimant. The proposed approach is to ask the claimant to only establish a prima facie case as to each element of the cause of action, where it is satisfied that the claim is not abusive. This threshold balances the rights of the defendant, with that of access to justice on the side of the claimant, given the abandonment of the initial availability of the early dismissal mechanism only for manifestly unfounded cases.
The Commission proposal is an excellent first step towards ending abusive litigation against public participation and comes at a time when statistics highlighted the need for a common European solution. The proposal would however only address a small part of the problem, as Union level competence is limited on matters of procedural law. It is therefore essential that further measures are taken by the Member States complementing those taken at Union level. Upon entry into force of this Directive, Member States should not limit the extension of these provisions only to cross border cases in matters of civil and commercial law, but also extend them to domestic cases and to cases governed by criminal law. At the same time, following the period of review, the Commission should also take into consideration the possibility of tackling criminal cases of SLAPPs, through the appropriate legal measures.
The implementation of the recommendation accompanying this legislative proposal is also essential for its effectiveness. In this regard, Member States should also consider introducing dedicated rules governing the ethic codes of lawyers and other legal practitioners, as to sanction the participation in initiating SLAPPs or disguising them as founded claims.
Finally, as another step forward, the Commission should review the Brussels Ia and RomeII Regulations, in order to address any other potential instances of forum shopping, not covered by this Directive.
AMENDMENTS
The Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs calls on the Committee on Legal Affairs, as the committee responsible, to take into account the following amendments:
Amendment 1
Proposal for a directive
Title
Amendment 2
Proposal for a directive
Citation 2 a (new)
Amendment 3
Proposal for a directive
Recital 2
Amendment 4
Proposal for a directive
Recital 3
Amendment 5
Proposal for a directive
Recital 3 a (new)
Amendment 6
Proposal for a directive
Recital 3 b (new)
Amendment 7
Proposal for a directive
Recital 4
Amendment 8
Proposal for a directive
Recital 4 a (new)
Amendment 9
Proposal for a directive
Recital 5
Amendment 10
Proposal for a directive
Recital 6
Amendment 11
Proposal for a directive
Recital 7
Amendment 12
Proposal for a directive
Recital 7 a (new)
Amendment 13
Proposal for a directive
Recital 7 b (new)
Amendment 14
Proposal for a directive
Recital 7 c (new)
Amendment 15
Proposal for a directive
Recital 9
Amendment 16
Proposal for a directive
Recital 10
Amendment 17
Proposal for a directive
Recital 11
Amendment 18
Proposal for a directive
Recital 12
Amendment 19
Proposal for a directive
Recital 13
Amendment 20
Proposal for a directive
Recital 13 a (new)
Amendment 21
Proposal for a directive
Recital 14
Amendment 22
Proposal for a directive
Recital 16
Amendment 23
Proposal for a directive
Recital 16 a (new)
Amendment 24
Proposal for a directive
Recital 17
Amendment 25
Proposal for a directive
Recital 18
Amendment 26
Proposal for a directive
Recital 19 a (new)
Amendment 27
Proposal for a directive
Recital 20
Amendment 28
Proposal for a directive
Recital 20 a (new)
Amendment 29
Proposal for a directive
Recital 23
Amendment 30
Proposal for a directive
Recital 23 a (new)
Amendment 31
Proposal for a directive
Recital 25 a (new)
Amendment 32
Proposal for a directive
Recital 30
Amendment 33
Proposal for a directive
Recital 30 a (new)
Amendment 34
Proposal for a directive
Recital 34 a (new)
Amendment 35
Proposal for a directive
Recital 35 a (new)
Amendment 36
Proposal for a directive
Recital 36
Amendment 37
Proposal for a directive
Recital 36 a (new)
Amendment 38
Proposal for a directive
Recital 36 b (new)
Amendment 39
Proposal for a directive
Recital 36 c (new)
Amendment 40
Proposal for a directive
Recital 36 d (new)
Amendment 41
Proposal for a directive
Recital 36 e (new)
Amendment 42
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Amendment 43
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Amendment 44
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Amendment 45
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a
Amendment 46
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point c
Amendment 47
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point d
Amendment 48
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point e
Amendment 49
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point e a (new)
Amendment 50
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point e b (new)
Amendment 51
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – introductory part
Amendment 52
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point - a (new)
Amendment 53
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point b
Amendment 54
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point c a (new)
Amendment 55
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point c b (new)
Amendment 56
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point c c (new)
Amendment 57
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point c d (new)
Amendment 58
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point b
Amendment 59
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 3
Amendment 60
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Amendment 61
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – title
Amendment 62
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1
Amendment 63
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 a (new)
Amendment 64
Proposal for a directive
Chapter III – title
Amendment 65
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1
Amendment 66
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 2
Amendment 67
Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – paragraph 1
Amendment 68
Proposal for a directive
Chapter V a (new)
Amendment 69
Proposal for a directive
Chapter V b (new)
Amendment 70
Proposal for a directive
Article 19 a (new)
Amendment 71
Proposal for a directive
Article 20 – paragraph 1
Amendment 72
Proposal for a directive
Article 20 – paragraph 1 a (new)
PROCEDURE – COMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION
FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL IN COMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION
07.6.2023
OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE ON CULTURE AND EDUCATION
for the Committee on Legal Affairs
on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on protecting persons who engage in public participation from manifestly unfounded or abusive court proceedings (“Strategic lawsuits against public participation”)
(COM(2022)0177 – C90161/2022 – 2022/0117(COD))
Rapporteur for opinion: Stelios Kouloglou
SHORT JUSTIFICATION
On 27 April 2022, the European Commission published its legislative proposal for a directive on protecting persons who engage in public participation from manifestly unfounded or abusive court proceedings (“Strategic lawsuits against public participation”).
PROCEDURE – COMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION
FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL IN COMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION
PROCEDURE – COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE
FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL IN COMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION