What changed

DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION

SHORT JUSTIFICATION

onOn the27 proposalApril for2022, athe directiveEuropean ofCommission thepublished Europeanits Parliamentlegislative andproposal offor thea Councildirective on protecting persons who engage in public participation from manifestly unfounded or abusive court proceedings (“Strategic lawsuits against public participation”)participation”).

(COM(2022)0177 – C90161/2022 – 2022/0117(COD))

Overall, the Rapporteur welcomes the proposal and suggests improvements in order to clarify certain provisions, especially those related to the terminology, the definitions, and to the scope of the directive, aiming at strengthening citizen’s EU protection.

(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

The Rapporteur would like to highlight that the so-called SLAPPs – as lawsuits filed with an improper purpose – are abusive by their very nature. If a case is “manifestly unfounded”, this indicates its abusive nature. Since all abusive lawsuits should be filtered out of the court system and made subject to sanctions, the Rapporteur proposes to remove the divide between “manifestly unfounded” and “abusive”, ensuring that all procedural safeguards apply to both, with a special focus on early dismissal, costs security, damage compensation and sanctions. As the commonly used term “Strategic lawsuits against public participation” may appear unclear for the purpose of legislating, given the difficulty of using and defining the term “strategic” in particular in EU civil law systems, the Rapporteur proposes to use the term “abusive lawsuits against public participation” as a catch-all term throughout the text, while nevertheless keeping the established abbreviation “SLAPP” for better communication purposes, to avoid confusion and to keep the links with relevant texts from the Council and the UN.

The European Parliament,

Furthermore, the Rapporteur believes it is important to highlight the Directive’s broad personal scope, which shall extend to claims brought against any natural or legal person engaging – directly or indirectly – in public participation. The explicit mention of particular categories of SLAPP targets by way of example, e.g. civil society, non-governmental organisations and trade unions, as well as researchers, scientists, academics, artists, whistleblowers and publishers, shall reflect the wide range of actors impacted by this phenomenon across the EU. At the same time, there is a focus on journalists and human rights defenders in certain recitals to keep the initial aim of text, as they are the majority of SLAPPs victims. A special reference is added to reflect the worrying gender-based rise of SLAPPs. It is also proposed to broaden third party legal interventions including professional associations to strengthen the representation of the rights of persons engaging in public participation.

– having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2022)0177),

A very important aspect for the Rapporteur is to make sure that the new Directive applies to pending cases, commenced or continued before a national court at the time of its entry into force, as well as to civil claims brought in criminal proceedings, while administrative matters are to be narrowly interpreted to strengthen citizens’ protection from claims abusively grounded on provisions of an administrative nature.

– 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),

Moreover, the Rapporteur proposes to include references to several other rights and freedoms that are inherently linked to the exercise of freedom of expression and information, e.g. the right to freedom of association and assembly as well as to freedom of the arts, culture and science, with a view to anchor the instrument to a comprehensive and rights-based definition of the notion of “public participation” which should be intended as participation in public life and decision-making, but also in the exercise of a watchdog role to promote accountability for activity that is deemed illegal, immoral, illicit, unsafe or fraudulent.

– having regard to Article 294(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Public participation should clearly include as well artistic, cultural, research and scientific activities, while the digital environment is also included, in order to make sure that protected public participation activities include the right of expression online as well.

– having regard to the reasoned opinion submitted, within the framework of Protocol No 2 on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, by the French Senate and of the Czech Senate, asserting that the draft legislative act does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity,

Additionally, the Rapporteur believes it is important to ensure a rights-based notion of “matter of public interest”. As part of e.g. public health and sustainable consumption, large-scale violations of working conditions or human rights in supply chains may also be of public interest. This shall be made clear so as to ensure that workers or organisations reporting such wrongdoings do not become target of SLAPPs, in line with the Whistle-blower Protection Directive and to support the effective monitoring and enforcement of the pending proposals for an EU Directive on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence and an EU Regulation on Forced Labour.

– having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 26 October 2022,

Furthermore, the Rapporteur welcomes the Directive’s innovative perspective for “cross-border” covering certain domestic cases and suggests that it be broadly interpreted according with its relevance to the concept of the “matter of public interest”, instead of mere practical implications for different member states, especially in today’s digital world and to strengthen EU safeguards against forum shopping and against SLAPPs from third countries.

– having regard to Rule 59 of its Rules of Procedure,

A clear burden of proof on the claimant is of absolute importance and therefore, the Rapporteur replaces the “manifestly unfounded” threshold with a requirement for the claimant to establish a “prima facie” case as to each essential element of the cause of action.

– having regard to the opinions of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and the Committee on Culture and Education,

Finally, education and awareness raising, as well as a review of deontological standards of legal professionals, are also suggested by the Rapporteur as enablers towards the effective implementation of the Directive.

– having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A9-0000/2023]),

Notably, Rapporteur’s suggestions were drafted after taking due account of input deriving from civil society organisations which include.

1. Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out;

 The Coalition against SLAPPs in Europe

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”)';

 Transparency International

3. Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it replaces, substantially amends or intends to substantially amend its proposal;

 Civil Liberties Union for Europe

4. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.

 Committee to Protect Journalists

 Greenpeace International

 the Daphne Caruana Galizia Foundation

 Culture Action Europe

 News Media Europe

AMENDMENTS

The Committee on Culture and Education calls on the Committee on Legal Affairs, as the committee responsible, to take into account the following amendments:

Amendment 1

Proposal for a directive

Citation 3 a (new)

Title

Or. en

Amendment 2

Recital 2

Or. en

Amendment 3

Proposal for a directive

Recital 43

Or. en

Amendment 4

Proposal for a directive

Recital 64

Or. en

Amendment 5

Proposal for a directive

Recital 75

Or. en

Amendment 6

Proposal for a directive

Recital 7 a (new)

Or. en

Amendment 7

Proposal for a directive

Recital 9

Recital 7 a (new)

Or. en

Amendment 8

Proposal for a directive

Recital 10

Recital 7 b (new)

Or. en

Amendment 9

Proposal for a directive

Recital 118

Or. en

Amendment 10

Proposal for a directive

Recital 129

Or. en

Amendment 11

Proposal for a directive

Recital 15 a (new)

Recital 10

Or. en

Amendment 12

Proposal for a directive

Recital 1811

Or. en

Amendment 13

Proposal for a directive

Recital 2016

Or. en

Amendment 14

Proposal for a directive

Recital 2218

Or. en

Amendment 15

Proposal for a directive

Recital 22 a (new)

Recital 20

Or. en

Amendment 16

Proposal for a directive

Recital 25 a (new)

Recital 22

Or. en

Amendment 17

Proposal for a directive

Recital 29

Recital 24 a (new)

Or. en

Amendment 18

Proposal for a directive

Recital 3126

Or. en

Amendment 19

Proposal for a directive

Recital 31 a (new)

Recital 30

Or. en

Amendment 20

Proposal for a directive

Recital 32 a (new)

Recital 31

Or. en

Amendment 21

Proposal for a directive

Recital 33 a (new)

Or. en

Amendment 22

Proposal for a directive

Recital 3334 ba (new)

Or. en

Amendment 23

Proposal for a directive

Recital 3435 a (new)

Or. en

Amendment 24

Proposal for a directive

Recital 3439 ba (new)

Or. en

Amendment 25

Proposal for a directive

Recital 3439 cb (new)

Or. en

Amendment 26

Proposal for a directive

Recital 3439 dc (new)

Or. en

Amendment 27

Article 1 – paragraph 1

Or. en

Amendment 28

Article 2 – paragraph 1

Or. en

Amendment 29

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 a (new)

Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 1

Or. en

Amendment 30

Proposal for a directive

Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 12 – introductory part

Or. en

Amendment 31

Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a

Or. en

Amendment 32

Proposal for a directive

Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point e a (new)d

Or. en

Amendment 33

Proposal for a directive

Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 32 – point -a (new)e

Or. en

Amendment 34

Proposal for a directive

Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 32 – point ce a (new)

Or. en

Amendment 35

Proposal for a directive

Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point ca ba (new)

Or. en

Amendment 36

Proposal for a directive

Article 43 – paragraph 21 – point 3 – point b a (new)

Or. en

Amendment 37

Proposal for a directive

Article 53 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point b b (new)

Or. en

Amendment 38

Proposal for a directive

Article 5 a (new)

Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point c

Or. en

Amendment 39

Proposal for a directive

Article 5 b (new)

Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point a

Or. en

Amendment 40

Proposal for a directive

Article 75 – paragraph 13

Or. en

Amendment 41

Proposal for a directive

Article 7 a– (new)paragraph 1

Or. en

Amendment 42

Proposal for a directive

Article 98 – paragraph 21

Or. en

Amendment 43

Proposal for a directive

Article 14 – paragraph 1 a (new)

Chapter III – title

Or. en

Amendment 44

Proposal for a directive

Article 159 – paragraph 1

Or. en

Amendment 45

Proposal for a directive

Article 16 a (new)

Article 9 – paragraph 2

Or. en

Amendment 46

Proposal for a directive

Article 1812 – paragraph 1

Or. en

Amendment 47

Proposal for a directive

Chapter V a (new)

Article 14 – paragraph 1

Or. en

Amendment 48

Proposal for a directive

Chapter V b (new)

Article 15 – paragraph 1

Or. en

Amendment 49

Proposal for a directive

Article 2017 – paragraph 1

Or. en

Amendment 50

Article 21 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1

Or. en

Amendment 51

Proposal for a directive

Article 21 – paragraph 2 a (new)

Amendment 52

Proposal for a directive

Article 21 – paragraph 2 b (new)

PROCEDURE – COMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION

FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL IN COMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION