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”)
LIBE-AD-745244
Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs · Rapporteur: Ramona Strugariu
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.
The Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs gives its opinion on the proposed directive against abusive court proceedings, known as SLAPPs. It says the Commission proposal is a first step but too narrow, and proposes amendments to broaden the definition of public participation and the early dismissal mechanism.¶¶¶ It asks that the early dismissal mechanism be available to all victims, with the claimant bearing the burden of proof by establishing a prima facie case. It also calls on member states to extend the rules to domestic and criminal cases and to sanction lawyers who help bring SLAPPs.¶¶¶
Committee position. The committee proposes to broaden the definition of public participation and the early dismissal mechanism, to abandon the distinction between manifestly unfounded and abusive cases, to place the burden of proof on the claimant, and to extend the rules to domestic and criminal cases.¶¶¶
Key points
- SLAPPs are abusive lawsuits brought not to assert a right but to prevent, restrict or penalise public participation, and they overburden the judicial system.¶
- Victims include journalists, media outlets, activists, editors, human rights defenders and private individuals, and may also include those in preparatory or supporting activities.¶
- The definition of public participation should be broadened to cover freedoms of association and assembly, academic freedoms, and media pluralism and media freedom as matters of public interest.¶
- The directive must provide an early dismissal mechanism available ex officio or at the defendant's request, with no higher admissibility threshold than other safeguards.¶
- The mechanism should be accessible to all victims of SLAPPs, abandoning the Commission's distinction between manifestly unfounded and abusive cases.
- The claimant should bear the burden of proof and only need to establish a prima facie case for each element of the cause of action, where the claim is not abusive.¶
- Member states should extend the provisions to domestic cases and to cases governed by criminal law, not only cross-border civil and commercial cases.¶
- The Commission should consider tackling criminal cases of SLAPPs through appropriate legal measures after the review period.
- Member states should consider rules on the ethics codes of lawyers and other legal practitioners to sanction participation in initiating SLAPPs or disguising them as founded claims.¶
- The Commission should review the Brussels Ia and Rome II Regulations to address other potential instances of forum shopping not covered by the directive.¶
Who is affected
- Journalists, media outlets, activists, editors, human rights defenders and private individuals engaged in public participation, who would gain protection from abusive lawsuits.¶
- Member states, which should extend the rules to domestic and criminal cases and consider ethics rules for lawyers.¶¶
- The Commission, which should consider measures on criminal SLAPPs and review the Brussels Ia and Rome II Regulations.¶