Sittings · Document
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”)
Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs · Rapporteur: Ramona Strugariu
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 1
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
| Proposal for a | Proposal for a |
| DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL | 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”) | on protecting persons who engage in public participation from abusive court proceedings (“Strategic lawsuits against public participation”) |
Or. en
Amendment 2
Proposal for a directive
Recital 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
| (2) Article 10(3) of the Treaty on European Union states that every Union citizen has the right to participate in the democratic life of the Union. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the ‘Charter’) provides, inter alia, for the rights to respect for private and family life (Article 7), the protection of personal data (Article 8), freedom of expression and information, which includes respect for the freedom and pluralism of the media (Article 11), and to an effective remedy and to a fair trial (Article 47). | (2) Article 10(3) of the Treaty on European Union states that every Union citizen has the right to participate in the democratic life of the Union. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the ‘Charter’) provides, inter alia, for the rights to respect for private and family life (Article 7), the protection of personal data (Article 8), freedom of expression and information, which includes respect for the freedom and pluralism of the media (Article 11), freedom of assembly and association (Article 12), and to an effective remedy and to a fair trial (Article 47). |
Or. en
Amendment 3
Proposal for a directive
Recital 3 a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
| (3a) As recognised by consistent jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in relation to the interpretation of relevant provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and in the light of which the Charter is to be interpreted and applied pursuant to its Article 52(3), the right to freedom of expression and information may also be given expression through the exercise of other rights and freedoms, including the right to freedom of assembly and of association, as set forth in Article 12 of the Charter, and the freedom of the arts and sciences, including academic freedom, as set forth in Article 13 of the Charter. Article 12 of the Charter explicitly guarantees the right of everyone to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his or her interests, which is further consolidated in Article 28 of the Charter, guaranteeing the right of collective bargaining and action. |
Or. en
Amendment 4
Proposal for a directive
Recital 4
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
| (4) The purpose of this Directive is to provide protection to natural and legal persons who engage in public participation on matters of public interest, in particular journalists and human rights defenders, against court proceedings, which are initiated against them to deter them from public participation (commonly referred to as strategic lawsuits against public participation or ‘SLAPPs’). | (4) The purpose of this Directive is to provide protection to natural or legal persons who engage in public participation on matters of public interest, in particular journalists and human rights defenders, including civil society, non-governmental organisations and trade unions, as well as researchers, academics or artists, against court proceedings, which are initiated against them to deter them from public participation (commonly referred to as strategic lawsuits against public participation or ‘SLAPPs’). |
Or. en
Amendment 5
Proposal for a directive
Recital 7
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
| (7) Human rights defenders also play an important role in European democracies, especially in upholding fundamental rights, democratic values, social inclusion, environmental protection and the rule of law. They should be able to participate actively in public life and make their voice heard on policy matters and in decision-making processes without fear of intimidation. Human rights defenders refer to individuals or organisations engaged in defending fundamental rights and a variety of other rights, such as environmental and climate rights, women’s rights, LGBTIQ rights, the rights of the people with a minority racial or ethnic background, labour rights or religious freedoms. Other participants in public debate, such as academics and researchers, also deserve adequate protection. | (7) Human rights defenders also play an important role in European democracies, especially in upholding fundamental rights, democratic values, social inclusion, environmental protection and the rule of law. They should be able to participate actively in public life, promote accountability and make their voice heard on policy matters and in decision-making processes without fear of intimidation. Human rights defenders refer to individuals or organisations engaged in defending fundamental rights and a variety of other rights, such as environmental and climate rights, women’s rights, LGBTIQ rights, the rights of the people with a minority racial or ethnic background, labour rights, trade union rights or religious freedoms. Other participants in public debate, such as academics, researchers or artists, also deserve adequate protection. |
Or. en
Amendment 6
Proposal for a directive
Recital 9
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
| (9) To foster this environment, it is important to protect journalists and human rights defenders from court proceedings against public participation. Such court proceedings are not initiated for the purpose of access to justice, but to silence public debate typically using harassment and intimidation. | (9) To foster this environment, it is important to protect natural or legal persons who engage in public participation, in particular journalists and human rights defenders, from court proceedings against public participation. Such court proceedings are not initiated for the purpose of access to justice, in order to genuinely assert, vindicate or exercise a right, but to prevent, restrict or penalise public participation, ultimately seeking to silence public debate typically using harassment and intimidation. |
Or. en
Amendment 7
Proposal for a directive
Recital 13
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
| (13) The safeguards provided in this Directive should apply to any natural or legal person on account of their engagement in public participation. They should also protect natural or legal persons who, either on a professional or on a personal basis, support, assist or provide goods or services to another person for purposes directly linked to public participation on a matter of public interest. This involves for example internet providers, publishing houses or print shops, which face or are threatened with court proceedings for providing services to the person targeted with court proceedings. | (13) The safeguards provided in this Directive should apply to any natural or legal person on account of their direct or indirect engagement in public participation. They should also protect natural or legal persons who, either on a professional or on a personal basis, support, assist or provide goods or services to another person for purposes directly linked to public participation on a matter of public interest. This involves for example internet providers, publishing houses or print shops, which face or are threatened with court proceedings for providing services to the person targeted with court proceedings. |
Or. en
Amendment 8
Proposal for a directive
Recital 16
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
| (16) Public participation should mean any statement or activity by a natural or legal person expressed or carried out in exercise of the right to freedom of expression and information on a matter of public interest, such as the creation, exhibition, advertisement or other promotion of journalistic, political, scientific, academic, artistic, commentary or satirical communications, publications or works, and any preparatory activities directly linked thereto. It can also include activities related to the exercise of the right to freedom of association and peaceful assembly, such as the organisation of or participation to lobbying activities, demonstrations and protests or activities resulting from the exercise of the right to good administration and the right to an effective remedy, such as the filing of complaints, petitions, administrative and judicial claims and participation in public hearings. Public participation should also include preparatory, supporting or assisting activities that have a direct and inherent link to the statement or activity in question and that are targeted to stifle public participation. In addition, it can cover other activities meant to inform or influence public opinion or to further action by the public, including activities by any private or public entity in relation to an issue of public interest, such as the organisation of or participation to research, surveys, campaigns or any other collective actions. | (16) Public participation should mean any statement or activity by a natural or legal person expressed or carried out in exercise of the right to freedom of expression and information on a matter of public interest, such as the creation, exhibition, advertisement or other promotion of journalistic content, news and current affairs, political, scientific, academic, artistic, commentary or satirical communications, publications or works, and any preparatory activities directly linked thereto. It can also include activities related to the exercise of academic freedom, the right to freedom of association and peaceful assembly, such as the organisation of or participation to lobbying activities, demonstrations and protests or activities resulting from the exercise of the right to good administration and the right to an effective remedy, such as the filing of complaints, petitions, administrative and judicial claims and participation in public hearings. Public participation should also include preparatory, supporting or assisting activities that have a direct and inherent link to the statement or activity in question and that are targeted to stifle public participation. In addition, it can cover other activities meant to inform or influence public opinion or to further action by the public, including activities by any private or public entity in relation to an issue of public interest, such as the organisation of or participation to research, surveys, campaigns or any other collective actions. |
Or. en
Amendment 9
Proposal for a directive
Recital 18
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
| (18) The notion of a matter of public interest should include also quality, safety or other relevant aspects of goods, products or services where such matters are relevant to public health, safety, the environment, climate or enjoyment of fundamental rights. A purely individual dispute between a consumer and a manufacturer or a service provider concerning a good, product or service should be covered only when the matter contains an element of public interest, for instance concerning a product or service which fails to comply with environmental or safety standards. | (18) The notion of a matter of public interest should include also quality, safety or other relevant aspects of goods, products or services where such matters are relevant to public health, safety, the environment, climate or enjoyment of fundamental rights such as media freedom and pluralism. A purely individual dispute between a consumer and a manufacturer or a service provider concerning a good, product or service should be covered only when the matter contains an element of public interest, for instance concerning a product or service which fails to comply with environmental or safety standards, labour rights, consumer rights or human rights, including the principle of non-discrimination. |
Or. en
Amendment 10
Proposal for a directive
Recital 20
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
| (20) Abusive court proceedings typically involve litigation tactics used in bad faith such as delaying proceedings, causing disproportionate costs to the defendant in the proceedings or forum shopping. These tactics are used by the claimant for other purposes than gaining access to justice. Such tactics are often, although not always, combined with various forms of intimidation, harassment or threats. | (20) Abusive court proceedings typically involve litigation tactics used in bad faith such as exaggerated or excessive damage claims, requesting disproportionate prior restraint measures, delaying proceedings, causing disproportionate costs to the defendant in the proceedings or forum shopping. These tactics are used by the claimant for other purposes than gaining access to justice in order to genuinely assert, vindicate or exercise a right, leading to an abuse of substantive or procedural laws. Such tactics are often, although not always, combined with various forms of intimidation, harassment or threats, such us the expression of intent to wield such practices. |
Or. en
Amendment 11
Proposal for a directive
Recital 23
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
| (23) Defendants should be able to apply for the following procedural safeguards: a request for a security to cover procedural costs, or procedural costs and damages, a request for an early dismissal of manifestly unfounded court proceedings, a request for remedies against abusive court proceedings (award of costs, compensation of damages and penalties), or all of them at the same time. | (23) Defendants should be able to apply for the following procedural safeguards: a request for a security to cover procedural costs, or procedural costs and damages, a request for an early dismissal of abusive court proceedings, a request for remedies against abusive court proceedings (award of costs, compensation of damages and penalties), or all of them at the same time. |
Or. en
Amendment 12
Proposal for a directive
Recital 26
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
| (26) To provide the defendant with an additional safeguard, there should be a possibility to grant him or her a security to cover procedural costs and/or damages, when the court considers that even if the claim is not manifestly unfounded, there are elements indicating an abuse of procedure and the prospects for success in the main proceedings are low. A security does not entail a judgement on the merits but serves as a precautionary measure ensuring the effects of a final decision finding an abuse of procedure. It should be for Member States to decide whether a security should be ordered by the court on its own motion or upon request by the defendant. | (26) To provide the defendant with an additional safeguard, there should be a possibility to grant him or her a security to cover procedural costs and/or damages, when the court considers that there are elements indicating an abuse of procedure and the prospects for success in the main proceedings are low. A security does not entail a judgement on the merits but serves as a precautionary measure ensuring the effects of a final decision finding an abuse of procedure. It should be for Member States to decide whether a security should be ordered by the court on its own motion or upon request by the defendant. |
Or. en
Amendment 13
Proposal for a directive
Recital 30
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
| (30) If a defendant has applied for early dismissal, it should be for the claimant in the main proceedings to prove in the accelerated procedure that the claim is not manifestly unfounded. This does not represent a limitation of access to justice, taking into account that the claimant carries the burden of proof in relation to that claim in the main proceedings and only needs to meet the much lower threshold of showing that the claim is not manifestly unfounded in order to avoid an early dismissal. | (30) If a defendant has applied for early dismissal, it should be for the claimant in the main proceedings to prove in the accelerated procedure that the aim of the claim is not to trigger abusive court proceedings. This does not represent a limitation of access to justice, taking into account that the claimant carries the burden of proof in relation to that claim in the main proceedings and only needs to meet the threshold of establishing a prima facie case as to each essential element of the cause of action that the claim is not characterised by elements of abuse, in order to avoid an early dismissal. |
Or. en
Amendment 14
Proposal for a directive
Recital 34 a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
| (34a) The provisions and safeguards of this Directive apply, in accordance with the interpretation by the Court of Justice of the European Union of the principle ‘tempus regit actum’1a, to all pending abusive court proceedings against public participation on the date of entry into force of the national law implementing the Directive and thereafter. | |
| _________________ | |
| 1a Case No. C-610/10, European Commission v Kingdom of Spain |
Or. en
Amendment 15
Proposal for a directive
Recital 35 a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
| (35a) This Directive should be without prejudice to existing rights of representation and intervention as guaranteed by other Union or national law. |
Or. en
Amendment 16
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
| This Directive provides safeguards against manifestly unfounded or abusive court proceedings in civil matters with cross-border implications brought against natural and legal persons, in particular journalists and human rights defenders, on account of their engagement in public participation. | This Directive provides procedural legal safeguards against abusive court proceedings in civil matters with cross-border implications brought directly or indirectly against natural or legal persons, in particular journalists and human rights defenders, on account of their engagement in public participation. |
Or. en
Amendment 17
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 1
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
| 1. ‘public participation’ means any statement or activity by a natural or legal person expressed or carried out in the exercise of the right to freedom of expression and information on a matter of public interest, and preparatory, supporting or assisting action directly linked thereto. This includes complaints, petitions, administrative or judicial claims and participation in public hearings; | 1. ‘public participation’ means any statement or activity by a natural or legal person expressed or carried out in the exercise of rights such as the right to freedom of expression and information, academic freedom, freedom of association and assembly on a matter of public interest, and preparatory, supporting or assisting action directly linked thereto. This includes inter alia journalistic content, complaints, petitions, administrative or judicial claims and participation in public hearings. This shall also include any supporting or preparatory activities thereof, such as the provision by natural or legal persons, either on a professional or personal basis, of support to another person for purposes directly linked to public participation on a matter of public interest; |
Or. en
Amendment 18
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
| (a) public health, safety, the environment, climate or enjoyment of fundamental rights; | (a) public health, safety, media freedom and pluralism, the environment, climate or enjoyment of fundamental rights; |
Or. en
Amendment 19
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point d
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
| (d) allegations of corruption, fraud or criminality; | (d) allegations of corruption, fraud, money laundering or criminality; |
Or. en
Amendment 20
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point e
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
| (e) activities aimed to fight disinformation; | (e) activities aimed to protect the rule of law, to fight disinformation or activities aimed to prevent foreign interference by third country agents; |
Or. en
Amendment 21
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – introductory part
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
| 3. ‘abusive court proceedings against public participation’ mean court proceedings brought in relation to public participation that are fully or partially unfounded and have as their main purpose to prevent, restrict or penalize public participation. Indications of such a purpose can be: | 3. ‘abusive court proceedings against public participation’ mean court proceedings brought in relation to public participation that are fully or partially unfounded, are characterised by elements indicative of an abusive use of the judicial process for purposes other than genuinely asserting, vindicating or exercising a right and have as their main purpose to prevent, restrict or penalize public participation. Indications of such a purpose can be: |
Or. en
Amendment 22
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point b a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
| (b a) the usage of litigation tactics deployed by the claimant, including as regards the choice of jurisdiction, or of dilatory or vexatious tactics; |
Or. en
Amendment 23
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point b
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
| (b) early dismissal of manifestly unfounded court proceedings in accordance with Chapter III; | (b) early dismissal of abusive court proceedings in accordance with Chapter III; |
Or. en
Amendment 24
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 3
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
| 3. Member States may provide that measures on procedural safeguards in accordance with Chapters III and IV can be taken by the court or tribunal seised of the matter ex officio. | 3. Member States shall provide that measures on procedural safeguards in accordance with Chapters III and IV can be taken by the court or tribunal seised of the matter ex officio. |
Or. en
Amendment 25
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
| Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that a court or tribunal seised of court proceedings against public participation may accept that non-governmental organisations safeguarding or promoting the rights of persons engaging in public participation may take part in those proceedings, either in support of the defendant or to provide information. | Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that a court or tribunal seised of court proceedings against public participation may accept that the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, international organisations and their bodies, such as the Council of Europe, non-governmental organisations or collective bodies, such as trade unions or professional organisations, safeguarding or promoting the rights of persons engaging in public participation may take part in those proceedings, either in support of the defendant or to provide information. |
Or. en
Amendment 26
Proposal for a directive
Chapter III – title
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
| Early dismissal of manifestly unfounded court proceedings | Early dismissal of abusive court proceedings against public participation |
Or. en
Amendment 27
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
| 1. Member States shall empower courts and tribunals to adopt an early decision to dismiss, in full or in part, court proceedings against public participation as manifestly unfounded. | 1. Member States shall empower courts and tribunals to adopt an early decision to dismiss, in full or in part, abusive court proceedings against public participation as defined in Article 3(3). |
Or. en
Amendment 28
Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – paragraph 1
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
| Member States shall ensure that where a defendant has applied for early dismissal, it shall be for the claimant to prove that the claim is not manifestly unfounded. | Member States shall ensure that where a defendant has applied for early dismissal, it shall be for the claimant to prove that the claim is not an abusive court proceeding against public participation, as defined in Article 3(3). |
Or. en
Amendment 29
Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – paragraph 1 a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
| Pursuant to paragraph 1, when seeking to avoid an early dismissal, the claimant shall establish a prima facie case as to each essential element of the cause of action that the claim is not characterised by elements of abuse. |
Or. en
Amendment 30
Proposal for a directive
Article 19 a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
| Article 19a | |
| Application in time | |
| The provisions of this Directive shall apply to all abusive court proceedings against public participation, as defined in Article 3(3), initiated or continued at the time of the entry into force of the national law implementing this Directive and thereafter. |
Or. en
Amendment 31
Proposal for a directive
Article 20 – paragraph 1
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
| Member States shall provide the Commission with all relevant information regarding the application of this Directive by [5 years from the date of transposition]. On the basis of the information provided, the Commission shall by [6 years from the date of transposition] at the latest, submit to the European Parliament and the Council a report on the application of this Directive. The report shall provide an assessment of the evolution of abusive court proceedings against public participation and the impact of this Directive in the Member States. If necessary, the report shall be accompanied by proposals to amend this Directive. | Member States shall provide the Commission with all relevant information regarding the application of this Directive by [3 years from the date of transposition]. On the basis of the information provided, the Commission shall by [4 years from the date of transposition] at the latest, submit to the European Parliament and the Council a report on the application of this Directive. The report shall provide an assessment of the evolution of abusive court proceedings against public participation and the impact of this Directive in the Member States. If necessary, the report shall be accompanied by proposals to amend this Directive. |
Or. en