Changes from adopted text to adopted text

RemovedP9_TA(2023)0264

AddedP9_TA(2024)0085

Protection of journalists and human rights defenders from manifestly unfounded or abusive court proceedings

Committee on Legal Affairs

PE745.170

ChangedAmendments adopted by the European Parliament onlegislative 11resolution Julyof 202327 February 2024 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”) (COM(2022)0177 – C9-0161/2022 – 2022/0117(COD))

(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

RemovedCitation 2 a (new): Having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee,

Change 1

AddedThe European Parliament,

RemovedRecital 2: (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 of association (Article 12) and to an effective remedy and to a fair trial (Article 47).

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

RemovedRecital 3 a (new): (3a) The right to freedom of expression is a fundamental right that is to be exercised with a sense of duty and responsibility, taking into account people’s fundamental right to obtain impartial information as well as the respect for the fundamental right to protect one’s reputation, protection of personal data and privacy. In cases of a conflict between these rights, all parties are to have access to courts with due respect to the fair trial principle.

Added– 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),

RemovedRecital 3 b (new): (3b) In its resolution of 11 November 2021 on strengthening democracy and media freedom and pluralism in the Union, the European Parliament called on the Commission to propose a package of both soft and hard law to address the increasing number of strategic lawsuits against public participation or ‘SLAPPs’ concerning journalists, NGOs, academics and civil society in the Union. Parliament proposed legislative measures in the areas of civil and criminal procedural law, such as an early dismissal mechanism for abusive civil lawsuits, the right to the full award of costs incurred by the defendant, and the right to compensation for damage. The resolution of 11 November 2021 also included a call for adequate training for judges and legal practitioners on SLAPPs, a specific fund to provide financial support for the victims of SLAPPs and a public register of court decisions on SLAPP cases. In addition, Parliament called for the revision of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council1a (‘Brussels I Regulation’) and of Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council1b(‘Rome II Regulation’) in order to prevent 'libel tourism' or 'forum shopping'. / 1a Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ L 351, 20.12.2012, p.1). / 1b Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and…

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

RemovedRecital 4: (4) The purpose of this Directive is to provide for minimum rules at Union level in order to ensure the protection of natural and legal persons who engage in public participation on matters of public interest, including journalists, publishers, media organisations, whistleblowers and human rights defenders, as well as civil society organisations, NGOs, trade unions, artists, researchers and academics, against court proceedings initiated against them, as well as the threats thereof, to deter them from public participation (commonly referred to as strategic lawsuits against public participation or ‘SLAPPs’).

Added– 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, asserting that the draft legislative act does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity,

RemovedRecital 5: (5) Journalists play an important role in facilitating public debate and in the imparting and reception of information, opinions and ideas. Independent, professional and responsible journalism, as well as access to pluralistic information, are key pillars of democracy. It is essential that journalists are afforded the necessary space to contribute to an open, free and fair debate and to counter disinformation, information manipulation and interference. Journalists should be able to conduct their activities effectively and without fear to ensure that citizens have access to a plurality of views in European democracies.

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

RemovedRecital 6: (6) Investigative journalists and media organisations in particular play a key role in uncovering and combating organised crime, abuse of power, corruption, fundamental rights violations and extremism. Their work carries particularly high risks and they are experiencing a growing number of attacks, killings, threats, intimidation and harassment. A robust system of safeguards and protection, including protection of their physical safety, is needed to enable investigative journalists to fulfil their crucial role as watchdogs on matters of public interest, without fear of punishment for searching for the truth and informing the public.

Added– having regard to the provisional agreement approved by the committee responsible under Rule 74(4) of its Rules of Procedure and the undertaking given by the Council representative by letter of 20 December 2023 to approve Parliament’s position, in accordance with Article 294(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

RemovedRecital 7: (7) Human rights defenders also play an important role in European democracies, especially in upholding fundamental rights, democratic values, social inclusion, environmental protection, gender equality and the rule of law. Considering the Union’s environmental and climate policies, attention should also be given to the protection of environmental rights defenders. Human rights defenders 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, or religious freedoms.

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

RemovedRecital 7 a (new): (7a) Participants in public debate, other than journalists, media organisations or human rights defenders, such as academics, researchers or artists, also deserve adequate protection. In a democratic society, they should be able to research, teach, learn, perform and communicate without fear of reprisal. Academics and researchers contribute fundamentally to public discourse and dissemination of knowledge, as well as ensure that the democratic debate can take place on an informed basis and counter disinformation.

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

RemovedRecital 9: (9) To foster this environment, it is important to protect natural and legal persons from court proceedings against public participation. Such court proceedings are not initiated for the purpose of access to justice, but to silence public debate and prevent investigation of and reporting on breaches of Union and national law, including corruption or other abusive practices typically using harassment and intimidation.

Added– having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A9-0223/2023),

RemovedRecital 10: (10) SLAPPs are typically initiated by powerful entities, for example individuals, lobby groups, corporations, public officials, publicly controlled entities, politicians, judicial authorities and state organs in an attempt to silence public debate. They often involve an imbalance of power between the parties, with the claimant having a more powerful financial or political position than the defendant. Although not being an indispensable component of such cases, where present, an imbalance of power significantly increases the harmful effects as well as the chilling effects of court proceedings against public participation.

Added1. Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out;

RemovedRecital 11: (11) Court proceedings against public participation may have an adverse impact on the credibility and reputation of natural and legal persons that engage in public participation and exhaust their financial and other resources. Because of such proceedings, the publication of information on a matter of public interest may be delayed or altogether avoided. The length of procedures and the financial pressure may have a chilling effect on natural and legal persons that engage in public participation. The existence of such practices may therefore have a deterrent effect on their work by contributing to self-censorship in anticipation of possible future court proceedings, which leads to the impoverishment of public debate to the detriment of society as a whole.

Added2. Suggests that the act be cited as 'the Wölken-Bolaños García Directive on protecting persons who engage in public participation from manifestly unfounded or abusive court proceedings (“Strategic lawsuits against public participation”)';

RemovedRecital 12: (12) Those targeted by court proceedings against public participation may face multiple cases simultaneously, which can be civil, administrative or criminal or a combination of those, sometimes initiated in several jurisdictions. Proceedings initiated in the jurisdiction of one Member State against a person resident in another Member State are usually more complex and costly for the defendant. Claimants in court proceedings against public participation may also use procedural tools to drive up the length and cost of the litigation, and bring cases in a jurisdiction they perceive to be favourable for their case (forum shopping), rather than to the court best placed to hear the claim. The length and variety of procedures, the financial pressure and the threat of penalties, constitute powerful tools to intimidate and silence critical voices. Such practices also place unnecessary and harmful burdens on national court systems and lead to misuse of their resources, thus constituting an abuse of judicial systems.

Added3. Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it replaces, substantially amends or intends to substantially amend its proposal;

RemovedRecital 13: (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 lawyers, family members, internet providers, publishing houses or print shops, which face or are threatened with court proceedings for assisting, providing support or services to the person targeted with court proceedings.

Added4. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.

RemovedRecital 15: (15) The Directive does not apply to claims arising out of liability of the State for actions or omissions in the exercise of State authority (acta iure imperii) and claims against officials who act on behalf of the State and liability for acts of public authorities, including liability of publicly appointed office-holders, unless national law provides for it. In line with established case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, court proceedings might still fall within the scope of ‘civil and commercial matters’ as referred to in this Directive where a State or a public body is a party, if the acts or omissions do not occur in the exercise of State authority.

AddedP9_TC1-COD(2022)0117

RemovedRecital 15 a (new): (15a) This Directive lays down minimum rules, thus enabling the Member States to adopt or maintain provisions that are more favourable to persons engaging in public participation, including national law establishing more effective procedural safeguards, such as a double penalty whereby, in full respect of the right to a fair trial, the court is able to not only award the costs or compensation to the defendant but also impose a penalty to be paid to the State by the claimant when it is clear that the litigation it commenced was vexatious, frivolous or in bad faith. The implementation of this Directive should not serve to justify any regression in relation to the level of protection that already exists in each Member State.

AddedPosition of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 27 February 2024 with a view to the adoption of Directive (EU) 2024/… of the European Parliament and of the Council on protecting persons who engage in public participation from manifestly unfounded claims or abusive court proceedings (‘Strategic lawsuits against public participation’)

RemovedRecital 16: (16) Public participation should mean any statement, activity or preparatory, supporting or assisting action directly linked thereto, by a natural or legal person expressed or carried out in the exercise of fundamental and human rights and freedoms such as 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 academic and artistic 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…

Added(As an agreement was reached between Parliament and Council, Parliament's position corresponds to the final legislative act, Directive (EU) 2024/1069.)

RemovedRecital 18: (18) The notion of a matter of public interest should include matters relevant to the enjoyment of fundamental rights, including gender equality, protection from gender-based violence and non-discrimination, and the protection of the rule of law, media freedom and pluralism, and the environment. It 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, consumer and labour 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.

RemovedRecital 19 a (new): (19a) Allegations of corruption, fraud, embezzlement, money laundering, extortion, coercion, sexual harassment and gender-based violence, or other forms of intimidation and criminality, or any other criminal or administrative offence, including financial criminality and environmental crime, qualify as matters of public interest. Activities aimed to protect the values enshrined in Article 2 TEU, the principle of non-interference in democratic processes, and providing or facilitating public access to information with a view to fighting disinformation also qualify as matters of public interest.

RemovedRecital 20: (20) The imbalance of power between the parties which is characteristic of SLAPPs typically derives from the misuse of economic advantage or political influence by the claimant against the defendant, together with the lack of legal merit. Other indicators for abusive court proceedings typically involve litigation tactics used in bad faith such as relying on one or more fully or partially unfounded claims, making excessive claims, delaying proceedings or discontinuing cases at a later stage of the proceedings, initiating multiple proceedings on similar matters, causing disproportionate costs to the defendant in the proceedings or forum shopping. The past conduct of the claimant and, in particular, any history of legal intimidation should also be considered when determining whether the court proceedings are abusive in nature. These tactics are used by the claimant for other purposes than gaining access to justice or genuinely exercising a right. Such tactics are often, although not always, combined with various forms of intimidation, harassment or threats.

RemovedRecital 20 a (new): (20a) Manifestly unfounded or abusive court proceedings against public participation are becoming more sophisticated and more effective, with one of the techniques used being multiple lawsuits filed against the same person on the same subject matter, meaning that all of them have to be defended and dealt with simultaneously and in parallel by the same person, which increases costs disproportionately.

RemovedRecital 20 b (new): (20b) SLAPPs are consistently characterised by an imbalance of power between the claimant and the defendant in terms of financial and legal resources. This imbalance of power gives rise to particular concern if the abusive lawsuits are funded directly or indirectly from state budgets and are combined with other indirect and direct state measures against independent media organisations, independent journalism and civil society.

RemovedRecital 20 c (new): (20c) Abusive court proceedings against public participation often infringe on defendants’ right to defence recognised by the Charter, and might also impact on their right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence.

RemovedRecital 22: (22) A matter should be considered to have cross-border implications unless both parties are domiciled in the same Member State as the court seised. Even where both parties are domiciled in the same Member State as the court seised, a matter should be considered to have cross-border implications in two other types of situations. The first situation is where the specific act of public participation is relevant to, more than one Member State due to the cross-border dimension of the act itself or due to a legitimate interest which the public may take in the matter concerned by the act, including if the act is accessible via electronic means. Such situations include for instance public participation acts, such as events organised by Union institutions, appearances in public hearings or widely disseminated publications. They could include as well statements or activities on matters, such as cross-border pollution, or allegations of money laundering with potential cross-border involvement. An act of public participation should be considered to be accessible in more than one Member State, in particular, if it is carried out on the internet, for example in the case of social media campaigns or online media coverage. The ubiquitous nature of the internet warrants considering acts of public participation that are accessible in more than one Member State to be matters with cross-border implications. The effect of digital means of communication on the notion of cross-border elements has …

RemovedRecital 22 a (new): (22a) Support should be available to persons targeted by court proceedings against public participation from the moment competent authorities become aware of such persons and throughout the proceedings, in accordance with the rights set out in this Directive. Support should be made available by a variety of means, including by providing comprehensive and independent information and advice, in a manner that is easily accessible to the public and free of charge, on procedures and remedies available, on protection against intimidation, harassment or threats of legal action, and on the rights of the person concerned, and by providing legal aid in cross-border civil proceedings, legal aid in further proceedings and legal counselling or other legal assistance which is deemed appropriate. Member States should provide for financial assistance and support measures, including psychological support, for those targeted by court proceedings against public participation.

RemovedRecital 22 b (new): (22b) Participation in proceedings against public participation exposes those targeted to particular psychological stress. The preparation for such proceedings and participation therein additionally ties up valuable resources of the defendants that they often do not have or that otherwise would have been invested in engaging in public participation. Associations, organisations and other collective bodies, such as trade unions, and any other legal entities which have, in accordance with the criteria laid down by their national law, a legitimate interest in safeguarding the rights of the defendant should therefore have the possibility of participating in the proceedings, either on behalf or in support of the defendant, with his or her approval, or of providing information in the judicial procedures provided for the enforcement of obligations under this Directive. Such possibility of legal representation should be without prejudice to the rights and competences of trade unions and worker’s representatives to engage on behalf of or in support of workers in judicial proceedings, in accordance with other Union and national rules.

RemovedRecital 23: (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. Court proceedings brought against natural or legal persons on account of their engagement in public participation should be dealt with in a swift and effective manner, taking into account the circumstances of the case, the right to an effective remedy and the right to a fair trial.

RemovedRecital 26: (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. Where national law so provides, it should be possible to grant security to the defendant at any stage of the court proceedings and the judge should be able to order that a provision for court fees be allocated to the defendant and be borne by the claimant considering, where appropriate, the financial situation of the parties and the predictable costs of the proceedings. 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 and covering the costs and damage caused to the defendant. 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.

RemovedRecital 29: (29) Courts or tribunals seised with an application for procedural safeguards, should act expeditiously in relation to that application, using the most efficient procedures available under national law. To ensure high expediency in the accelerated procedure on an application for early dismissal, Member States may set time limits for the holding of hearings or for the court to take a decision. They may as well adopt schemes akin to procedures in relation to provisional measures. Member States should make efforts to ensure that when the defendant has applied for other procedural safeguards, the decision is also taken in an expeditious manner. For expeditious treatment, Member States could take into account, amongst others, whether the claimant has initiated multiple or concerted proceedings in similar matters and the existence of attempts to intimidate, harass or threat the defendant.

RemovedRecital 30: (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. In addition, decisions of early dismissal should always be made by a judge, on a case-by-case basis, and the claimants should always be entitled to lodge an appeal against the early decision to dismiss.

RemovedRecital 31: (31) Costs should include all costs of the proceedings, including the full costs of legal representation, including pre-trial costs incurred by the defendant unless such costs are excessive. Costs of legal representation exceeding amounts laid down in statutory fee tables should not be considered as excessive per se, but allow costs to be awarded in full. Where national law does not provide for the full award of costs beyond statutory fees, the court should be able to award the full costs by whatever other means are available, in accordance with national law, including through the compensation of damages.

RemovedRecital 31 a (new): (31a) Full compensation for damage should include both material and non-material damage, such as physical, reputational and psychological harm. In order for the defendant to be able to claim damages easily and in a timely manner, it should be possible to seek damages in the same proceedings as those brought against the defendant, where appropriate through a counterclaim. Material damage should include in particular lawyer fees, when they are not reimbursable as costs, travel expenses and medical costs, in particular for psychological care. Material damage should include pre-trial costs, if they are not included in costs under national law or this directive. Pre-trial costs should also include necessary expenses incurred in respect of defending the person's rights against abusive claims, including lawyer fees. Non-material damage should include in particular different forms of physical and/or psychological harm, pain and suffering or emotional distress related to the court proceedings, reputational damage and in general, any types of intangible damage.

RemovedRecital 32: (32) The main objective of giving courts or tribunals the possibility to impose penalties is to deter potential claimants from initiating abusive court proceedings against public participation. Such penalties should be determined on a case by case basis and should be proportionate to the elements of abuse identified. When establishing amounts for penalties, courts should take into account the potential for a harmful or chilling effect of the proceedings on public participation, including as related to the nature of the claim, whether the claimant has initiated multiple or concerted proceedings in similar matters and the existence of attempts to intimidate, harass or threat the defendant.

RemovedRecital 32 a (new): (32a) To ensure that the public can become aware of court decisions, Member States should establish a publicly accessible national register of relevant court decisions falling within the scope of this directive, in accordance with Union and national rules on the protection of personal data. The Commission should establish a publicly accessible Union register on the basis of the information from the registers of the Member States concerning relevant court decisions falling within the scope of this Directive, in accordance with Union rules on the protection of personal data.

RemovedRecital 33: (33) In the cross-border context, it is also important to recognize the threat of SLAPPs from third countries targeting journalists, human rights defenders and other persons engaged in public participation who are domiciled in the European Union. They may involve excessive damages awarded against persons engaging in public participation. Court proceedings in third-countries are more complex and costly for the targets. To protect democracy and freedom of expression and information in the European Union and to avoid that the safeguards provided by this Directive are undermined by recourse to court proceedings in other jurisdictions, it is important to provide protection also against manifestly unfounded and abusive court proceedings in third countries.

RemovedRecital 33 a (new): (33a) As regards jurisdiction for defamation claims or other claims based on civil or commercial law which could constitute abusive court proceedings against public participation, the Member State of domicile of the defendant should be considered as the sole forum, having due regard to cases where the defendants in cases of defamation are natural persons. With the exception of that rule concerning cases falling within the scope of this Directive, this Directive should not affect the application of the Brussels I Regulation.