Skip to content
DRAFT REPORT (COM(2022)0177 – C90161/2022 – 2022/0117(COD))

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”)

JURI-PR-745170

Committee on Legal Affairs · Rapporteur: Tiemo Wölken

Official HTML ↗ PDF DOCX
✦ In shortFull text
✦ In short · AI summary of this text, generated 28 Sept 2026

Written by a language model from the full text only; every figure comes from the text. The paragraph links open the paragraph a statement rests on — check the text itself before relying on it.

This is the rapporteur's draft report on the Commission proposal for a directive protecting people who engage in public participation from manifestly unfounded or abusive court proceedings, known as SLAPPs. It adopts Parliament's first-reading position and proposes many amendments to the Commission's text. The amendments widen the scope to cover threats of proceedings, interim measures and counter claims, and add rules on support for targets, NGO participation, national and Union registers, jurisdiction and applicable law. They also set minimum requirements allowing member states to keep more favourable safeguards, and require expeditious proceedings, full cost recovery and compensation.

Committee position. The rapporteur proposes that Parliament adopt its first-reading position with numerous amendments to the Commission proposal, widening its scope and adding rules on support, NGO participation, registers, jurisdiction and applicable law.

Key points

  1. The directive would provide safeguards against manifestly unfounded and abusive civil court proceedings, as well as threats of such proceedings, with cross-border implications, brought against natural and legal persons engaging in public participation.
  2. It would apply to civil or commercial matters with cross-border implications, including interim precautionary measures and counter claims, but not to revenue, customs or administrative matters or acta iure imperii.
  3. Member states could introduce or maintain more favourable provisions, and the directive could not justify reducing existing safeguards.
  4. Public participation would be defined to include statements or activities in the exercise of freedom of expression, assembly and association, such as complaints, petitions, claims, public hearings, journalistic, political, scientific, academic, artistic and satirical works, and preparatory activities.
  5. Matters of public interest would include public health, safety, the environment, climate, fundamental rights including consumer and labour rights, and activities advancing social change such as advocacy, reporting violations, petitions, peaceful protests or boycotts.
  6. Indicators of abusive proceedings would include exploitation of economic advantage and political influence, procedural tactics such as delaying proceedings and forum shopping, and a history of legal intimidation by the claimant.
  7. Courts would have to act expeditiously on applications for procedural safeguards, and member states would have to provide support measures including information, legal aid, legal counselling, financial assistance and psychological support.
  8. Courts could allow non-governmental organisations with a legitimate interest to take part in proceedings in support of the defendant or to provide information, and could allow NGOs to engage on behalf of the defendant with the defendant's approval.
  9. Member states would have to set proportionate and reasonable time limits for filing an application for early dismissal.
  10. Where national law does not guarantee full costs of legal representation beyond statutory fee tables, member states would have to ensure such costs are fully covered by other means, and defendants could claim full compensation without separate proceedings.
  11. Member states would have to establish publicly accessible national registers of relevant court decisions, and the Commission would establish a publicly accessible Union register based on that information.
  12. For defamation and similar claims, the defendant's domicile would be the sole forum; for publications, the applicable law would be that of the place the publication is directed to, or of editorial control if that cannot be identified.

Who is affected

  • Journalists, media organisations and human rights defenders, who would gain safeguards against abusive proceedings.
  • Academics, researchers and artists, who would also deserve adequate protection.
  • Natural and legal persons engaging in public participation, who could access support measures and legal aid.
  • Non-governmental organisations, which could take part in proceedings in support of defendants or on their behalf.
  • Member states, which would have to set time limits, establish registers and provide data to the Commission.

Figures and deadlines

  • Member states would have to provide information to the Commission by [3 years from the date of transposition] and every year thereafter.
  • The Commission would submit a report by [4 years from the date of transposition] and every five years thereafter.
  • Member states would have to bring laws into force by [1 year from the date of entry into force of this Directive] at the latest.

Legal basis: Article 294(2) and Article 81(2)(f) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.