On 18 July, Renaud Muselier, President of the Regional Council of Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur announced that he had filed a defamation complaint against Nice-Matin for “publishing false information” about him, without specifying the information in question. He also stated that a formal notice had been sent to the media outlets concerned, demanding that they remove it. Renaud Muselier is seeking €2 million in damages to Nice-Matin, as well as  €1 million from all media outlets that relayed the information. While expressing truth in the judicial system, Muselier further declared that “those political attacks will not go unpunished”.

After exchanging messages with Renaud Muselier, Nice-Matin discovered that the lawsuit stemmed from its reporting on an anonymous complaint that alleged an employee of Muselier’s chalet had been paid by a communications agency holding a public contract. The Marseille Public Prosecutor’s Office had opened a preliminary investigation into a potential conflict of interest, which was subsequently closed without further action.

“Reporting on matters of public interest does not constitute a political attack. We support Nice-Matin, whose reporting has upheld ethical and professional standards, including the presumption of innocence, and including invitation of Renaud Muselier to comment on all allegations against him. We call on Renaud Muselier to drop the defamation lawsuit. Public figures have a responsibility to set an example to safeguard press freedom and the right to information,” stated Ricardo Gutiérrez, EFJ General Secretary.

The EFJ observes that Renaud Muselier’s legal action bears several hallmarks of a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP). The financial amount of damages requested is excessive; there is an imbalance of power between the President of the South Region and the regional newspaper, and the lawsuit also appears to be aimed at sanctioning and suppressing a reporting of public interest.

Additionally, on 5 August, an elected official claimed responsibility for a different type of attack affecting a journalist from the regional newspaper. Ugo Massi, a farmer and member of the Rassemblement National municipal council in Cagnes-sur-Mer, threw a journalist to the ground and snatched her phone for a few seconds. The attack occurred at Ugo Massi’s father’s farm, where some greenhouses had been destroyed by a fire. While reporting with the father’s consent, the journalist had reportedly uncovered evidence of an illegal garage and abandoned luxury cars. The journalist, who sustained minor injuries to the elbow, filed a police complaint against Ugo Massi who reportedly apologised over the phone for having “laid a hand on her”. We stand in full solidarity with the journalist and are calling on the authorities to hold the elected official accountable for the attack.

Both incidents have been documented on the Mapping Media Freedom platform and reported to the Council of Europe’s Platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of journalists.

The targeting of the regional newspaper Nice-Matin must not be viewed as an isolated incident.Preliminary findingsfrom our recent international advocacy mission with Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) partners and Reporters Without Borders (RSF) confirmed that the environment for the press in France is deteriorating. One of the main threats to press freedom in France remains vexatious litigation. While the French government initially considered a broader transposition of the EU Anti-SLAPP Directive, spending two years drafting legislation based on recommendations from the États généraux de l’information (EGI), it adopted a decree on 5 May 2026 without consulting civil society or other stakeholders. This resulted in a weak transposition.

While physical attacks by political actors remain extremely rare in France, other persistent challenges include discrediting and obstructing journalists, as well as violence during protests, mainly perpetrated by law enforcement officers. Since the beginning of the year, at least 16 media professionals have been the target of severe death threats, reigniting safety concerns for journalists. The EFJ is particularly concerned that pressure on the media will intensify in the context of the 2027 presidential race, as has been observed during previous election periods. A mission report containing key recommendations will be published.

Given the critical juncture for media freedom, it is of the utmost importance that French public officials refrain from targeting the press and condemn all forms of pressure, including that exerted by elected officials, to ensure media professionals can report freely.

The EFJ reiterates its full support for Nice-Matin.

The post France: EFJ condemns South Region President’s defamation lawsuit against Nice-Matin and physical assault of its journalist by elected official appeared first on MFRR.

We call on the Special Court against Corruption and Organized Crime to immediately postpone the entry into force of the regulation in order to initiate a proper consultation process with EFJ members (APJA, AGSH and AEJ Albania) and other relevant stakeholders from the journalistic community, and develop a transparent framework that upholds the right to information and public hearings in line with the law and EU standards.

This new internal regulation represents a clear setback for judicial transparency. Particularly alarming is the prohibition on journalists using mobile phones during court hearings. Under Article 14 paragraph 7 of the High Judicial Council Guidelines, “court hearings may be recorded and broadcast in the media” as long as it does not conflict with the rules of due legal process. This prohibition of using mobile phones in courtrooms is far from trivial, as it directly hinders real-time reporting and the necessary communication with newsrooms to ensure timely and transparent coverage of high-profile anti-corruption and organised crime trials.

In its recent comparative report, published on 28 July 2026, AGSH warned that Albania does not need new restrictions, but rather the consistent application of existing rules and reasoned decisions on each individual request. It also recommended the use of partial recording instead of complete bans, in accordance with the High Judicial Council’s guidelines. On 11 June 2026, several Albanian TV broadcasters and press sent a letter to the High Judicial Council to express their concerns about the many difficulties that journalists encounter daily with public hearings and the right to information being treated merely as exceptions to the rule.

“Any regulation with such a profound impact on the public’s right to information must be adopted through transparent dialogue. A blanket prohibition on essential reporting tools is neither necessary nor proportionate. The EFJ supports the AGSH call to ensure that any restriction on judicial proceedings is well-reasoned, based on the law, and respects the media’s right to inform the public freely, professionally, and responsibly,” stated EFJ General Secretary Ricardo Gutiérrez.

The post Albania: The planned GJKKO Regulation represents an alarming regression in judicial transparency and media freedom appeared first on MFRR.

The new legislation, which was adopted on 31 July, makes Greece among the first countries in the European Union to transpose the EU Directive into national law in a manner which protects media and journalists from both cross-border and domestically-filed Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs).

The passing of the legislation, which goes beyond EU minimum standards, represents a positive mark on the press freedom record of the New Democracy government and will strengthen the legal climate for protecting public interest journalism.

IPI has long called for the introduction of measures by the Greek government to protect the country’s journalistic community against SLAPPs and commends the work of the Greek Ministry of Justice in the development and amendment of the bill.

The law includes several positive elements which international media freedom groups and domestic journalist associations have advocatedfor, including early dismissal mechanisms and the potential for legal costs to be paid by plaintiffs who file abusive litigation.

Under the new bill, defendants can request that a court throw out a claim within 30 days of the lawsuit being served if it is “manifestly unfounded or inadmissible”. This new early dismissal procedure sets a short deadline for the plaintiff’s response and the court’s judgment to avoid drawn-out court battles and “legal limbo”.

Judges are also handed powers to assess the alleged abusiveness of a lawsuit, assess SLAPP characteristics and impose sanctions, although the bill avoids definitions of what constitutes “abusive” litigation. However, the law does clearly define what constitutes a matter of public interest. In addition, if a lawsuit is recognised as a SLAPP and thrown out, the defendant can make a claim for compensation and the plaintiff can be ordered to pay full legal costs.

In a welcome development, the law includes provisions which allow third‑party intervention by professional journalistic unions and associations in Greece, which can engage in the legal process to support journalistic colleagues. IPI hails the work of Greece’s journalistic unions in pushing for this amendment.

Crucially, the new anti-SLAPP law will also have immediate application, meaning journalists in Greece already facing abusive litigation, either in the first instance or at the appeal stage, can benefit from the new safeguards. This retroactive remedy, which was included by the Ministry of Justice in response to recommendations by journalist unions, should be a crucial new shield for journalists in Greece currently facing SLAPPs.

IPI has long documented cases of SLAPPs in Greece and as part of the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) consortium has helped provide legal aid to investigative media targeted in abusive proceedings. Moving forward, IPI hopes these ongoing cases will benefit immediately from the new legal protections and see vexatious cases thrown out.

Taken together, IPI believes these provisions introduced within the new law will significantly increase the power of the courts to swiftly reject extortionate or censorious lawsuits and protect journalists and media in Greece carrying out public interest reporting from costly and time-consuming legal battles.

IPI notes that the new law covers both domestic and cross border SLAPPs, ensuring implementation of both EU Anti-SLAPP Directive and elements of the Council of Europe Recommendation Against SLAPPs. It covers only civil proceedings rather than criminal cases.

Defamation remains partially criminalised in Greece. While a 2024 reform abolished simple defamation, under Article 363 of the Greek Penal Code slanderous defamation (sykofantiki dysfimisi) remains a criminal offense punishable by a fine or imprisonment.

The Journalists’ Union of the Athens Daily Newspapers (ESIEA) welcomed the passing of the law as a “major institutional victory for journalists and press freedom” and noted that the final legislative framework accepted key positions and proposals provided by the union during the public consultation and the parliamentary process.

IPI regrets that the bill was not approved unanimously by all major political parties in Greece. While the governing New Democracy party voted to approve the law, opposition parties either voted against or abstained, with some arguing for even stronger safeguards to be added.

Last month, Greece was among 14 EU Member States to receive a formal letter from the European Commission about infringement proceedings over its delay in transposing the Anti-SLAPP Directive, for which the deadline was 7 May 2026. Greece has now made significant progress in transposing the Directive and should now be removed from the procedure.

The wider landscape for media freedom in Greece still faces numerous challenges, including the total impunity for the 2021 killing of a crime reporter, a lack of accountability over a major spyware scandal which targeted numerous journalists, issues stemming from media ownership, low levels of media pluralism, and economic fragility of the media market.

IPI notes that while the anti-SLAPP reform offers a clear pathway to improving the legal climate for media freedom in Greece, the key to its success now lies in implementation. IPI will continue to monitor and document SLAPPs and track the implementation of the legal reform.

• IPI’s monitoring of media freedom in Greece on the Mapping Media Freedom platform

The post Greece: IPI welcomes strong anti-SLAPP law as welcome boost for press freedom appeared first on MFRR.

Last week, MFRR partner Osservatorio Balcani Caucaso Transeuropa (OBCT), in its capacity as coordinator of CASE Italia, the Italian working group of the Coalition Against SLAPPs in Europe (CASE), took part in a hearing before the Justice Committee of the Italian Chamber of Deputies. During the hearing, it presented the working group’s submission on the government’s draft legislative decree transposing the EU Anti-SLAPP Directive.

CASE Italia’s submission, which was sent to all relevant parliamentary committees, highlighted that the Italian government’s proposal regrettably amounts to little more than a symbolic and ineffective transposition of the Directive. Moreover, it contains certain provisions that are potentially incompatible with European Union law, such as a restrictive interpretation of the definition of “cross-border.”

CASE Italia condemns the lack of ambition in the government’s proposal, which stems from its failure to engage with civil society despite the numerous calls for dialogue addressed to the Ministry of Justice since 2023. It also regrets that the proposal has been rushed through in the run-up to the summer recess. This accelerated timetable has not allowed for the careful consideration that an issue of such importance for the democratic system and the protection of a free and healthy public debate deserves.

However, the working group’s recommendations appear to have been taken into account. The President of the Justice Committee of the Senate called on the Government to recalibrate the criterion relating to the “cross-border” nature of disputes, clarify the concept of “public participation”, and consider amending the decree’s provisions on legal costs. These are all recommendations that had been put forward by the working group in its written submission.

Given the severity of the legal harassment phenomenon in Italy, which too often is being practiced by public figures to silence investigative journalism, the transposition of the EU anti-SLAPP Directive by the Italian government has been the focus of MFRR advocacy missions to Rome both in 2024 and 2026.

While continuing to monitor the parliamentary debate in the coming weeks, OBCT and the other members of CASE Italia call on the relevant parliamentary committees to take into account the comments contained in the submitted brief. They also once again call on the Government to:

• incorporate the recommendations of the European Union and the Council of Europe by extending procedural safeguards to all SLAPP cases, whether domestic or cross-border, and to proceedings of any kind;
• establish a cap on the amount of financial compensation that may be claimed in damages;
• provide effective compensation for both material and non-material harm suffered by victims of SLAPPs;
• introduce effective and proportionate sanctions to deter serial perpetrators of frivolous litigation;
• clarify the provisions of the Directive so that the burden of proving the merits of a claim clearly rests with the claimant, thereby ensuring legal certainty and the effectiveness of the safeguards.

Finally, in the context of aligning Italy with international standards on the protection of freedom of expression, CASE Italia reiterates its call for the decriminalisation of defamation, which remains one of the principal legal tools used to bring SLAPP cases in Italy.

The post Anti-SLAPP Directive in Italy: The Italian government’s proposal lacks ambition and dialogue appeared first on MFRR.

Cu Sens is a non-profit newsroom founded in 2019 by three experienced female investigative journalists, producing video-only content that supports democratic accountability in Moldova. Their work has been recognized with multiple national and regional awards since 2020, including “Investigation of the Year” titles in Moldova, two second-place finishes at Romania’s #Superscrieri Gala, and recognition from the EU Delegation in Moldova in 2024. In 2021, following two major investigations, the newsroom became subject of two different SLAPP cases. We had the opportunity to discuss them with the author of one of the investigations Felicia Creţu, and with one of the three co-founders of the newsroom Liuba Șevciuc.

Tell us about your case “The Partnership of Private Interests” (“Parteneriatul intereselor private”) and the SLAPP case that followed. 

In September 2021, we published “The Partnership of Private Interests,” an investigation into schemes for seizing public property through public-private partnerships. One especially troubling case centered on a private high school in Chișinău. Under the deal, the school’s founders received an old school building to renovate into a private institution. In practice, however, the founders went on to construct their own private buildings on public land they had only received for management.

Shortly after publishing, we received pre-trial claims from four separate but connected entities: the school, its founding company, the founder, and even his parents, demanding corrections or threatening to sue not just the reporter, but each of the media outlet co-founders individually and our newsroom as a legal entity. That meant four parallel lawsuits, each targeting five defendants, seeking a combined 50,000 euros in damages, an enormous sum for a newsroom that survives entirely on grants and has no reserve budget of its own. The sheer volume of lawsuits that hit us all at once was clearly an intimidation strategy, not correction. When we refused to make the requested edits, the case proceeded, and the damages claim eventually dropped to about 1,500 euros. Far more revealing was how much time, legal coordination, and psychological strain the initial threat had already extracted before a single hearing took place.

The lawsuits came as a complete surprise. This was the first time in the newsroom’s two years of activity that we had ever been sued, let alone by four parties at once. The impact was all the greater because Cu Sens had no budget allocated for a lawyer at that point, and no savings or free funds of our own.

We looked for help from donors and the first to respond was the Independent Journalism Center in Moldova, which provided the resources to hire a lawyer for one of the four cases and recommended a lawyer already trained to represent media outlets in defamation proceedings. We also received 3,000 USD from the Lifeline Embattled CSO Assistance Fund. Their support covered legal assistance for the remaining cases. Non-profit Equal Rights and Independent Media (ERIM) also provided the newsroom with a 4,000 EUR budget to hire a lawyer to represent the organization in future proceedings.

What was the personal impact of these lawsuits? 

One core principle at Cu Sens is that reporters are never left to face legal consequences alone, the newsroom stands behind them. That’s what happened here: the team members named in the lawsuits had the newsroom’s full backing, while management, in turn, found support among our external partners. Had that support not come through, we were prepared to turn to our community directly and launch a public crowdfunding campaign to cover the legal costs, so the pressure never became something any individual had to carry alone.

Unluckily, this is not your only SLAPP case. What happened with “ Digital Isn’t Going Well” (“Digital, ne merge prost”)?

The investigation began with the procurement of laptops for schools during the pandemic. We traced roughly 70 million MDL (about $4 million, including a $3 million World Bank loan) spent on laptops for schools during the pandemic, and found the money often didn’t reach the people who needed it: thousands of devices sat unused in storage rooms, some schools received laptops without internet access, and the World Bank-funded tender was won by a company linked to a businessmen close to the now jailed oligarch Vladimir Plahotniuc. We also found the procurement dragged on so long that many laptops arrived only after schools had already returned to in-person classes, making the whole exercise close to useless for its stated purpose.

After publication, you received requests to retract the article, corrections. What was your initial reaction? 

One claim came from the company at the center of our investigation, one of the country’s largest IT equipment distributors, and another came from its founder, an influential figure connected to one of the country’s most powerful oligarchs. This time, we had a financial cushion: a reserve left over from the legal defense fund raised during the first SLAPP case, which softened the impact considerably. The punishment isn’t really financial, it’s the months of legal preparation, court appearances, and diverted attention that drain a small newsroom regardless of the final verdict, which is precisely why SLAPP suits remain effective even when they’re destined to fail in court.

During the workshop in Chișinău, we discussed how SLAPP suits in Moldova don’t just exert economic or political pressure, they can also exploit the claimants’ social influence.

In both cases, the claimants were influential people, well connected politically, with strong public images and substantial financial resources. In the private school case, beyond the barrage of lawsuits aimed directly at Cu Sens, the founders also sued the independent experts we had consulted during our investigation. The goal was to make people around us reluctant to speak to us again, out of fear of being associated with “the side that gets sued.”

Moldovan legislation requires those seeking compensation to pay a fee proportional to the amount claimed. Does this rule truly act as a deterrent against SLAPP-style actions, or do economically more powerful parties continue to use them? 

In theory, this rule should discourage inflated compensation claims, since a higher demand means a higher court fee upfront. In practice, we’ve seen it used as a tactical maneuver rather than a genuine deterrent: in one of our cases, the plaintiff initially threatened us with a 1 million MDL compensation claim (equivalent of 50,000 euros), but once the case was actually filed in court, the amount dropped to 25,000 MDL (around 1250 euros). This suggests the large sum was never meant to be pursued, it was leverage, used to intimidate us during the pre-litigation phase, while the real legal claim was calibrated to something far more modest once formal costs came into play.

If you hadn’t had this legal and professional support, do you think the outcome would have been different? 

We were confident our reporting was accurate, but being right doesn’t make a SLAPP suit cheap or fast to fight. Without legal support, we would have had to publicly appeal for help, search for a pro bono lawyer, or represent ourselves in court, which for journalists without legal training is a serious disadvantage against an opposing side with resources.

In your opinion, is the number of SLAPP-type actions in Moldova increasing, or is there a greater capacity to recognize and combat them? 

From where we stand, we can only speak to our own experience, and for us, the pattern hasn’t gone away, it’s just become something we’re better equipped to handle thanks to lessons learned since 2021. Judicial pressure remains one of the main tools used against investigative journalism in Moldova. It’s an attractive tactic precisely because it offers a legal channel for people unhappy with an investigation to achieve intimidation goals that would otherwise be punishable by law. The lawsuit itself becomes the shield. That said, there are signs of progress: just last week (July 24, 2026), members of parliament adopted an anti-SLAPP bill that transposes European standards into Moldovan law.  The draft introduces criteria that will help courts identify when a lawsuit qualifies as a SLAPP, along with new procedural tools to protect journalists, human rights defenders, civic activists, whistleblowers, and NGO members, including a security deposit requirement for claimants, an early-dismissal mechanism for manifestly unfounded claims, fines of up to roughly 12,000 euros for abusive litigation, and full compensation for victims, including legal costs and moral damages. The bill also removes criminal-administrative liability for defamation, in line with Council of Europe recommendations. That said, this is only the first reading, the bill still needs a second reading in Parliament, with no clear timeline yet, and the new provisions would only take effect.

What advice would you give a young investigative journalist who receives their first vexatious lawsuit? 

As long as you’ve documented your investigation rigorously and it’s gone through a proper fact-checking process, you have no reason to be afraid or discouraged. In many ways, that first legal threat is a sign you did your job well, you hit a nerve that mattered enough for someone to fight back rather than just respond.

This publication is the result of the activities carried out within the framework of Media Freedom Rapid Response and the project Media Advocacy Action for Moldova: Empowering Moldova’s Public Watchdogs to Safeguard Media Freedom, co-financed by the CEI Fund of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), with the contribution of the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation. The views expressed in these materials are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect those of the co-financing institutions.

The post SLAPPs in Moldova: Lessons from investigative media outlet Cu Sens appeared first on MFRR.

On 2 July, a broad coalition of parties in the Dutch Parliament adopted a new law and voted in favour of:

• Reimbursements of all legal costs made by targets from SLAPPs;
• Enabling targets to ask for a guarantee: the judge can oblige the initiator of the SLAPP case to put financial compensation aside for expected procedural costs and compensation of damages of the target.

These measures do not only ensure that SLAPP targets are finally being compensated, but also that initiating a SLAPP case is becoming harder.

FPU also requested the Parliament to ensure these safeguards apply not only to cross-border SLAPP cases, but also SLAPP cases of a purely domestic nature. In fact, across Europe, more than 90% of SLAPP cases is domestic. In the implementation and transposition of the EU Anti-SLAPP directive, it is therefore essential to ensure safeguards are also applicable to national SLAPP cases. This is now also the case in the Netherlands, similar to Belgium, Poland and France.

We are extremely proud of this result and will continue to address SLAPP cases against all targets. Because who uncovers wrongdoings deserves protection, not a lawsuit.

The post Better protection against SLAPPs in the Netherlands: targets get their legal costs reimbursed and the threshold to start a SLAPP case becomes higher appeared first on MFRR.

The criminal lawsuit is a clear attempt to intimidate journalists and silence legitimate public interest reporting. It also represents a major test of the legal safeguards for media freedom and the rights of journalists to report on public figures in Spain.

On 21 July, Iglesias filed the lawsuit against the media outlet, its editor-in-chief Ignacio Escolar, and journalists María Ramírez, Juan Luis Sánchez, Ana Requena and Elena Cabrera.

The criminal complaint stems from a report published by elDiario.es in January 2026, in collaboration with U.S Spanish‑language television network Univision, in which two former female employees publicly accused Iglesias of sexual assault. The alleged incidents occurred in 2021 while the two women worked as live-in domestic staff at the Spanish singer’s Caribbean mansions. Iglesias strongly denies the allegations.

In March 2026, Iglesias’ legal team filed a conciliation lawsuit in Spain seeking to have the articles removed online. As part of that legal process, elDiario defended its investigative reporting, stressed it has followed professional journalistic standards in verifying information, and rejected the demand to retract the story.

In response, the world-famous singer then filed a criminal lawsuit, branding the story a “journalistic fabrication” and suing the media outlet for defamation, insult and damage to his moral integrity. The lawsuit states its intention to seek “significant financial compensation” from the defendants, though the exact sum has not been yet outlined in the case files.

IPI Executive Director Scott Griffen said: “IPI and our global network stand firmly behind elDiario and its reporting, which was conducted over a period of three years and with the highest journalistic standards. By filing  in criminal court rather than through civil proceedings, this lawsuit is clearly intimidatory in nature and will have a chilling effect on investigative reporting and the exercise of a free press in Spain.

“This is a major test of legal protections for media freedom in Spain. It also serves as another reminder of the urgent need for the full decriminalization of defamation within the Spanish criminal code, in line with European and international standards on freedom of expression – a reform IPI has long called for.”

Major test for media freedom

elDiario.es is one of Spain’s leading online news outlets and is considered a leading source of independent journalism in the country. The media outlet has stressed that all possible steps were taken to verify the information provided by the two women ahead of publication. Repeated requests for comment from Iglesias to the allegations before publication went unanswered.

Iglesias has accused the media outlet of knowingly distorting information in a way his lawyers claim violates the singer’s fundamental rights to honour, image and privacy. elDiario has stressed that jurisprudence of the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court protect truthful journalistic reporting on such matters of public interest.

Under the Spanish law, defamation remains a criminal offence under Article 205 of the Criminal Code and is punishable with a fine or, in serious cases, prison sentences of six months to two years. To prove the defamation claim, Iglesias’ legal team must show that the journalists knowingly published false information and demonstrated a “reckless disregard for the truth”.

Iglesias’ legal team chose not to sue investigation partner Univision, which is based in the U.S, where free speech and constitutional safeguards protect media from facing criminal defamation lawsuits and set a high bar in civil proceedings.

IPI will continue to closely monitor proceedings and has offered elDiario financial support for legal fees to help reduce the costs of what are likely to be lengthy legal proceedings.

IPI welcomes the support offered to elDiario by domestic media organisations such as and the Federation of Associations of Journalists of Spain (FAPE) Madrid Press Association (APM) and hopes to see additional solidarity from the professional Spanish media community.

Reforms in 2015 partially decriminalized defamation in Spain for minor insult and libel cases, removing Article 620(2) and shifting lesser cases to the civil sphere. However, defamation and serious insult remain within the Penal Code.

International media freedom and freedom of expression groups have long called for the full decriminalization of defamation in Spain, in line with case law under Article 10 of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and recommendations of international human rights bodies such as the Council of Europe.

IPI stresses that European standards make clear that partial or status-based approaches to decriminalization of defamation are insufficient to protect freedom of expression effectively. As long as defamation remains a criminal offence, it produces chilling effects on journalists and other public watchdogs.

• Click here to see IPI’s monitoring of media freedom in Spain on the Mapping Media Freedom platform, as part of the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) project.
• Read more about media freedom environment in Spain in our Monitoring Report 2025.

* María Ramírez, the deputy managing editor at elDiario.es and one of the defendants named in the lawsuit, is a member of IPI’s Executive Board

The post Spain: IPI supports elDiario after criminal defamation lawsuit by singer Julio Iglesias appeared first on MFRR.

On 23 June 2026, ARTICLE 19 Europe and Free Press Unlimited, as part of the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) project, organised a roundtable to gather views and develop recommendations on the mandate and governance of the European Centre for Democratic Resilience. The discussion brought together representatives of EU Member States’ Permanent Representations, the European Commission, journalists, and civil society organisations. The roundtable was hosted by MEP Kim Van Sparrentak and supported by the European Partnership for Democracy.

The roundtable had three main objectives:

• To provide recommendations on how to meaningfully embed a whole-of-society approach in the design of the Centre, including the active participation of media organisations and journalists.

• To highlight the key role of independent media in strengthening democratic resilience, particularly in collaboration with other stakeholders to respond to ‘disinformation’ and ‘foreign information manipulation and interference’ (FIMI).
• To gather perspectives on existing initiatives at national and international level, including national centres to protect democratic resilience. These will lay the ground for recommendations on how the ECDR and project proposals by Member States can protect media freedom and freedom of expression in support of democratic resilience.

The discussion was opened by expert and journalist interventions, which provided an overview of the Centre’s current status and objectives, as well as national experiences with countering FIMI and strengthening democratic resilience. Participants drew on examples from recent electoral processes in Moldova and Hungary to illustrate both challenges and successful approaches and to underline the close interrelation between internal and external threats to democratic resilience.

Design of the ECDR

Participants noted that the voluntary, project-based model of the ECDR ensures political support from all the Member States as well as flexibility to adapt the Centre’s response to future emerging threats to democratic resilience. The model encourages Member States to bring their best practices from the national level to the EU level, while also allowing for the projects under the ECDR to be tailored to their specific needs. At the same time, if not properly implemented, this model might not address the need for strengthened coordination and less fragmentation, some of the core objectives that the ECDR seeks to achieve. A positive effect of the ECDR already observed is that many Member States are in the process of setting up national centres for democratic resilience.

A strong consensus emerged that the Stakeholder Platform, a hub for independent actors’ engagement in the work of the ECDR, should become operational as soon as possible and that civil society and media should be included in its development and composition. Furthermore, participants stressed that the European Commission should establish transparent criteria for selecting participating organisations; these should include the involvement of organisations that have both meaningful on-the-ground experience, operating closely with relevant stakeholders, and capacity for inclusive stakeholder outreach. Furthermore, a key takeaway of the roundtable is that independent journalists and media must be recognised as core stakeholders within the Platform, reflecting their essential role in safeguarding democratic resilience. It was also emphasised that the exchange and engagement between the Member States, EU institutions, and external stakeholders should be meaningful and regular. Finally, for the ECDR to tackle FIMI and disinformation effectively, it was argued that measures vis-a-vis Big Tech companies as well as adequate and predictable funding for independent media are required.

Mandate of the ECDR

The ECDR will be progressively rolled out over the next few years, with the aim of gradually covering various elements of democratic resilience. It was underlined that the ECDR should not only have a reactive nature, but also preventative and assertive, analysing threat patterns as well as structural vulnerabilities and preparing for the information ecosystem of the future. While the Centre has a strong initial focus on addressing FIMI and disinformation— reflecting priorities identified by Member States — participants agreed that its mandate should evolve to address the broader range of (structural) challenges affecting democratic resilience, in line with all three pillars of the European Democracy Shield. More broadly, it was noted that the ECDR should align with relevant EU legislative frameworks such as the European Media Freedom Act and the Digital Services Act.

With regard to FIMI and disinformation tactics, it was noted that the ECDR could enable collective cross-border data gathering and analysis, allowing for early warning, prebunking, and awareness-raising among citizens. Independent and investigative journalists play a critical role in exposing and prebunking such campaigns, but also face enhanced security risks in doing so.

The following key recommendations emerged from the discussion:

1. Establish the Stakeholders’ Platform without delay and ensure a true whole-of-society structure. Timely and meaningful participation of civil society and independent media in its design and operation is essential to the Centre’s success. The Platform should be designed as a permanent governance mechanism, rather than an ad hoc consultation forum, with clear opportunities for stakeholders to contribute to the Centre’s work and the implementation of the European Democracy Shield agenda.
2. Ensure broad and inclusive stakeholder representation. The Platform should extend beyond Brussels-based and international organisations. Because FIMI is a global phenomenon with local impact (meaning that it crosses borders and  spreads rapidly, becoming embedded in local discourses), the Centre must engage local civil society organisations, journalists, and media actors having meaningful on-the-ground experience, working on the front lines of countering disinformation and protecting human rights, including those operating outside traditional EU policy networks.
3. Adopt a broader understanding of democratic resilience.  Besides FIMI and disinformation, the Centre should also tackle other internal and external issues relevant to the European Democracy Shield. Strengthening monitoring capacities to detect and expose ‘information manipulation’ should go hand in hand with investment in prebunking, media and information literacy, and sustaining information integrity and independent media.
4. Shift from reactive responses to preventive action. Democratic resilience requires moving beyond crisis response towards long-term prevention. Protecting civic space, addressing structural economic vulnerabilities, and improving citizens’ understanding of democratic institutions should form part of the Centre’s work. Several participants also highlighted participatory democracy methods, especially citizens’ assemblies, as an effective mechanism for strengthening democratic participation and incorporating citizens’ perspectives into policymaking.
5. Build safeguards against political co-optation. The Centre should include institutional checks and balances and human rights safeguards to prevent its governance or activities from being captured or misused by governments or other actors seeking to undermine democratic principles while operating within democratic frameworks. In the same vein it should be able to withstand shifts in national politics in individual Member States.
6. Move beyond the distinction between internal and external threats. Participants considered the traditional distinction between internal and external threats increasingly obsolete. The complexity of ‘information manipulation’, combined with the growing use of artificial intelligence to generate and amplify manipulative content, makes it increasingly difficult to identify the origin of threats. The Centre should therefore adopt a comprehensive approach that focuses on the impact of threats rather than their geographic source.

Provide sustainable and predictable funding. Participants emphasised that the Centre requires stable, long-term funding to fulfil its mandate effectively. This need was also reflected in the report adopted on the same day by the European Parliament’s Special Committee on the European Democracy Shield, which recognised the importance of establishing the Centre as a structural, autonomous EU entity with a clear mandate, adequate and predictable funding, and dedicated permanent staff. ARTICLE 19 Europe and Free Press Unlimited will organise follow-up discussions to explore these issues in greater depth with policymakers and stakeholders. The discussion will aim to further inform targeted recommendations on the Centre’s governance, mandate, and long-term development.

The post European Centre for Democratic Resilience must champion independent media appeared first on MFRR.

The countries included are Austria, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and Spain.

The EU infringement proceedings were initiated on 15 July, with letters of formal notice sent to these Member States for failing to notify about progress made in implementing the Directive. States now have two months to respond and update about measures taken or could eventually face legal action at the European Court of Justice.

The Anti-SLAPP Directive introduced EU-wide rules which protect journalists and civil society actors from manifestly unfounded or abusive civil proceedings with cross-border implications, including early dismissal tools and remedies for targets of SLAPPs. It was adopted in April 2024 and the transposition deadline was 7 May 2026.

Monitoring by IPI shows that while in some of the countries identified, such as Greece and Spain, steps have been taken to prepare for the transposition and bills are actively in development and reportedly close to being presented to or adopted by parliament.

In others such as Bulgaria and Portugal, initial work done to develop legislation has been delayed by institutional changes, changes in governments or political instability, though transposition work remains ongoing.

In other states, such as Italy and Hungary, little to no measurable progress has yet been made on transposition. However, with the new Tisza government in Hungary driving forward media freedom reforms, there is hope the new administration will introduce initial anti-SLAPP measures in the next legislative package identified for the autumn.

While Ireland has been actively working to tackle SLAPPs through legal reforms, and passed the Defamation Bill in 2024, further legislation is required to fully transpose the Anti-SLAPP Directive during its Presidency of the Council of the EU.

Although these 14 countries have been identified in the EU action, monitoring and analyses show that the overall picture for implementation of the Directive across the EU remains fragmented and uneven.

According to the European Anti-SLAPP Monitor, almost all EU Member States missed the May 2026 transposition deadline, with only a handful fully implementing on time.

IPI notes that even in those Member States where the Directive was implemented, such as Malta, these reforms only included minimum standards protecting against cross-border cases, and failed to include measures to safeguard against domestic SLAPPs.

In the wake of the EU’s opening of initial infringement action, IPI renews our call – made previously with Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) partners – for Member States to demonstrate their commitment to media freedom by accelerating their legislative processes in protecting against SLAPPs. This includes the 14 countries identified by the EU Commission and those in which reforms have been presented but not yet adopted.

Crucially, legislative reforms should both fully reflect both the letter and the spirit of the Anti-SLAPP Directive and introduce the substantive and procedural safeguards set out in the EU and Council of Europe Recommendation on SLAPPs.

A model here should be Poland, where last month the President approved a law which covers both domestic and cross-border SLAPPs, ensuring implementation of both EU Directive and Council of Europe Recommendation.

Member States which continue to delay or fail to transpose the directive should face legal action from the Commission, which must use all tools at its disposal to help safeguard media freedom across the bloc.

IPI, which has advocated at the EU and national level for measures to protect journalists and media from SLAPPs, will continue to monitor implementation in collaboration with European partners, including through MFRR media freedom missions.

The post EU: IPI welcomes action against 14 states over Anti-SLAPP Directive delays appeared first on MFRR.

The partners of the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) and the Council of Europe’s Safety of Journalists Platform today present a report which outlines the deteriorating situation for media freedom and safety of journalists in Serbia. The report is a result of an international mission to Belgrade that took place in March 2026.

Download the full report

In 2025, Serbia recorded 209 press freedom violations – more than double the 84 documented in 2024 – affecting 359 media workers and entities. Since January 2026, at least 170  more media workers have been affected.

Since the deadly collapse of the Novi Sad railway station canopy in November 2024, which triggered the largest protests in Serbia’s history, attacks on journalists covering demonstrations have surged. Law enforcement has not only failed to protect journalists, but police officers have increasingly acted as perpetrators themselves, with at least 38 documented police attacks on journalists since 2025.

The crisis extends well beyond physical safety. Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) continue to threaten public-interest reporting, with Serbia ranking third in Europe for the number of SLAPP cases, according to the CASE Coalition data for 2025. The continued criminalisation of insult compounds the chilling effect on journalists’ work.

In addition, media pluralism is under severe pressure. The majority state-owned Telekom Srbija has expanded its media holdings, consolidating pro-government narratives across the media landscape. Serbia’s media regulator, the REM Council, has been non-functional for over 18 months, making Serbia the only EU candidate country without a functioning media regulatory body. Coordinated bot attacks and spyware, including NSO Group’s Pegasus, have emerged as tools of digital censorship against journalists and media outlets.

The government has launched several legislative initiatives, including efforts to incorporate provisions of the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA) into domestic law. However, journalists and civil society actors have largely stopped engaging  with these processes, citing a lack of transparency, rushed timelines, and most prominently a profound absence of trust in the government’s intentions. The international community has a critical role to play to safeguard swiftly deteriorating press freedoms in Serbia and stem the wider democratic decline.

The partners of the MFRR and the Council of Europe’s Safety of Journalists Platform call on the Serbian authorities to:

Immediately cease inflammatory rhetoric targeting journalists and refrain from all verbal, physical, and legal attacks against the press, including the use of SLAPPs. The authorities should also introduce specialised training programmes for police and judicial actors to ensure the consistent application of protective measures for journalists.

The partners further call on the European Union to publicly and unequivocally condemn attacks on journalists in Serbia, and to make direct funding to Serbia in strategic areas conditional on measurable improvements in journalist safety and media freedom standards.

The full report includes detailed recommendations to Serbian authorities, including the government, parliament, police, and prosecution, on the concrete steps needed to counter this crisis.

The mission was coordinated by ARTICLE 19 Europe and joined by the following international organisations: Association of European Journalists (AEJ); European Broadcasting Union (EBU); European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF); European Federation of Journalists (EFJ); International Press Institute (IPI); Reporters Without Borders (RSF); Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso Transeuropa (OBCT); Index on Censorship; and Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ). The local partner was the Independent Journalists’ Association of Serbia (NUNS). The delegation met with journalists, editors, media associations, civil society organisations, law enforcement, the Parliamentary Speaker, and the Chief Prosecutor, among others.

Press contact: Katia Mierzejewska katia.mierzejewska@article19.org

The post Serbia: A dangerous spiral of violence against journalists appeared first on MFRR.