Members of the European Parliament (EP) today adopted a directive that protects journalists, activists and their organizations from strategic anti-public participation lawsuits (SLAPP lawsuits) aimed at curtailing freedom of speech.
With the decision, the EP confirmed its intention to ensure that individuals and organizations working on issues of public interest, such as fundamental rights, accusations of corruption, the protection of democracy or the fight against disinformation, receive EU protection from unfounded and disturbing lawsuits, according to the statement published on the website of the parliament.
The Directive, which was previously agreed with the European Council, was voted for by 546 MEPs, with 47 votes against and 31 abstentions, and it will enter into force twenty days after its publication in the Official Journal of the EU.
Protective measures will apply to all cross-border cases, except when both the defendant and the plaintiff are from the same EU country as the court, or when the case is relevant to only one member state.
The directive ensures that victims of SLAPP lawsuits are more strongly protected by introducing two safeguards, early dismissal if the case is without merit and the ability to require the plaintiff to pay estimated costs of the proceedings.
A court can punish the claimants, who are often politicians, corporations or lobby groups, with an order requiring them to pay damages to the defendant.
EU governments will ensure that potential victims of such claims can access information on procedural safeguards and remedies, including legal aid and financial and psychological support, in one place.
Member States will also have to ensure the provision of legal aid in cross-border civil proceedings.
MEP Tiemo Vulken (Social Democrats, Germany) said after the vote that SLAPP lawsuits pose a threat to the rule of law and seriously undermine basic rights to freedom of expression, information and association.
"They are a form of legal harassment and abuse of the judicial system, which are increasingly used by powerful individuals and organizations to avoid public scrutiny. Our courts should not be abused like this for personal gain," he said.
Bonus video:
