Urgent action needed by the Netherlands to protect civic…

Urgent action needed by the Netherlands to protect civic space against SLAPPs and other forms of legal intimidation

Legal intimidation and SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) are attempts to intimidate and silence public watchdogs through lengthy and expensive litigation proceedings by starting meritless lawsuits.

These threats mostly target civil society actors participating in public debates, including human rights advocates, whistle-blowers, climate activists and even academics more broadly. Under the pretext of seeking justice or protecting their rights, those who start these actions only seek to drain them from their resources (time and money) and force them to self-censor.


These abusive tactics have become a very effective way to repress dissent and limit the public’s access to truthful information. Perhaps the most famous example of SLAPPs is the case of the Maltese journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia, who at the time of her death had 47 defamation cases pending against her. Similar intimidatory tactics are also taking place closer to home. Dutch journalist Okke Ornstein was an exemplary case in 2016, when he was imprisoned for criminal defamation for exposing corruption in Panama; the lawsuits filed by Pretium Telecom against several journalists like Peter Olsthoorn for publishing about their seemingly unethical practices; the legal actions started by different dairy companies to stop the public campaign of Dier&Recht bringing attention to the animal cruelty that is part of the industry; among many others. As such, SLAPPs are a growing threat to freedom of speech, press freedom, civil society, and democracies all over the world. The Netherlands is no exception.


Due to these mounting concerns, countries such as the USA, UK, Canada, Australia, South Africa, and the Philippines have been taking firm steps to stop legal intimidation via laws or their judiciaries. For example, the UK both set out a Call for Evidence to collect as much SLAPPs data as possible in a short period of time as well as adopt a criteria-test to define and recognize SLAPPs cases. In 2010, The Supreme Court of the Philippines introduced limited anti-SLAPP protections in the cases related to environmental protection in its Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases. In 2021, in South Africa, the Western Cape High Court established an Anti-SLAPP defence available for defendants who believe that a lawsuit is brought with the intention of silencing them (Case Number 7595/2017). We believe that the Netherlands (and the European Union, and all its member states) cannot lag behind in putting a stop to SLAPPs and other forms of legal intimidation against public watchdogs.Therefore, we call on the Dutch authorities to: 


Establish a systematic and coordinated mechanism to monitor these forms of intimidation.

The Netherlands should systematically monitor SLAPPs and other forms of legal intimidation against journalists, climate activists, human rights defenders, and other public watchdogs. The current cabinet’s position as expressed in the BNC fiche from June 3rd, 2022 is that there are few to no SLAPPs in the Netherlands. We believe this is not necessarily accurate and it is not a reason to refrain from preventative measures, given the proliferation of SLAPPs across Europe and the absence of adequate monitoring of SLAPPs. For example, recent data collected by the NVJ shows that legal intimidation against journalists in the Netherlands is very real: 1 out of 10 journalists have faced legal action(s) in connection with a publication; 25% of journalists are more cautious with publishing their work due to the legal risks related to journalism; and 10% even adjusts their publication or refrains from publishing completely. It is vital that from now on, these forms of legal harassment are monitored, not only against journalists but against civil society more broadly. Moreover, such monitoring must be systematic and coordinated. Besides quantitative monitoring, more background research is needed to better understand the source and rationale behind these threats.


Next to obtaining a better understanding of the level and scope of legal intimidation against civil society actors in the Netherlands, it is crucial that the Netherlands supports the EU regulatory proposals to protect journalists, climate activists, human rights defenders, and other public watchdogs, including our own organizations, against such harassment, including suits abroad that might lead to enforcement proceedings in the Netherlands. Therefore the undersigned organizations call on the Netherlands, as a global champion of freedom of expression and human rights more broadly, in particular to: 


Take a leading role in ensuring ambitious and robust legislative measures are adopted to address SLAPPs across Europe.
We urgently need legislation and regulatory action to protect these vital actors in society who serve the public interest. The EU anti-SLAPP Directive and the accompanying Recommendation as proposed by the European Commission, currently being debated in the EU member states, provide a solid foundation. However, the recently leaked version of the Anti-SLAPP Directive as coordinated by the Swedish Presidency of the European Council has immensely watered-down the provisions of the EU Commission’s initial proposal. We strongly believe that in order for any legislation to effectively protect those affected by SLAPPs and other forms of legal intimidation, the Netherlands should commit to ensuring that  the provisions of the initial SLAPPs Directive are preserved as much as possible. 


The Netherlands should take a frontrunning role by promoting progressive anti-SLAPP protections within its borders and more widely in Europe by supporting the EU Anti-SLAPPs Directive. Adopting robust legislative and regulatory measures to protect against SLAPPs is not only important in terms of preventing these forms of intimidation from taking place, but also to maintain the Netherlands’ longstanding reputation as a champion of freedom of expression and human rights globally. 

Signed by:

  • Article 19
  • European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)
  • European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)
  • Free Press Unlimited
  • Greenpeace International
  • International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), National
  • Committee of the Netherlands
  • Nederlandse Vereniging van Journalisten (NVJ)
  • Netherlands Helsinki Committee (NHC)
  • OBC Transeuropa (OBCT)
  • Oxfam Novib
  • Otto Volgenant, lawyer (independent) 
  • Tarlach McGonagle, academic (independent)

This statement was coordinated by the Coalition Against SLAPPs in Europe and the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR), a Europe-wide mechanism which tracks, monitors and responds to violations of press and media freedom in EU Member States, candidate countries, and Ukraine.

MFRR 3 consortium logos

Ireland: How the wealthy and powerful abuse legal system…

Ireland: How the wealthy and powerful abuse legal system to silence reporting

Inside story of the impact on journalists in Ireland awaiting long-delayed SLAPPs reform


By IPI contributor Naomi O’Leary

It was a scoop that packed a punch. As Ireland struggles with a grinding housing crisis that has made record numbers of people homeless, a young newspaper reporter discovered a landlord was planning a mass eviction – of an entire apartment block.

The reporter spoke to the landlord’s public relations representative, asking for a comment, as is standard reporting practice. Half an hour later, the threat to sue for defamation arrived.

“It was addressed to me by name. It seemed he would sue me personally,” the reporter told the International Press Institute (IPI). How much does it cost to hire a solicitor, the reporter remembers wondering. Would my salary stretch that far?

Not only that, but tenants of the landlord had also received legal threats, warning them against speaking to the press.

“That scared the crap out of them. I lost a lot of sources that way,” the reporter recalls. “They thought even if they were anonymous in the story, he’d still know and would still sue them – that’s what the tenants believed.”

The story was ultimately published, though with the name of the landlord omitted, to be on the safe side. But for the reporter, there was no going back.

“This was the point I decided to leave journalism. I was battling with a PR paid three to four times my salary,” the reporter recalls. “As much as I want to do it, if you get anything wrong, a small mistake, you can be financially ruined. I quit the next week.”

Interviews with journalists and civil society organisations in Ireland on behalf of IPI have revealed how the wealthy and powerful systematically abuse Ireland’s legal system to influence reporting about them, to keep unflattering information out of the public domain.

The journalists interviewed included freelancers, local news reporters, and staff at top national publications. They disclosed how legal intimidation affects the full range of Irish media, from the smallest shoestring podcasts and magazines to major broadcasters.

The threat of defamation proceedings has muzzled the reporting of stories of public interest on topics as varied as the housing crisis, concussion in sport, local community tragedies, sexual abuse, and day-to-day political reporting, the interviews revealed. As a result, the public is prevented from finding out about matters of public interest concerning wealthy individuals, and some of the politicians they elect.

Journalists are also told by their employers and by lawyers not to discuss lawsuits publicly for fear of escalating legal intimidation, preventing the scale of the issue from being widely known.

Cases disclosed to the International Press Institute:

For the purposes of breaking the silence around the abuse of defamation proceedings in Ireland, journalists and civil society actors disclosed defamation cases or threats they were subject to on the condition their names were protected due to concerns about further legal or professional risk.

  • One small publisher shared images of a selection of four recent solicitors letters they had received warning of defamation proceedings in response to their coverage of Ireland’s housing crisis. Most represented people with commercial interests in the housing sector.
  • A survivor of sexual abuse said they had received a letter warning of potential defamation proceedings in advance of speaking at a public event.
  • Plans to report on a sexual harassment suit against a company were shelved after the complainant received a legal threat from company lawyers and withdrew from plans to speak to the press, according to the journalist who wanted to report on the story.
  • One small local newspaper was forced to pay solicitors and barristers a sum that could have hired an extra reporter for a year after being accused of defamation by a politician, according to a journalist at the outlet. The article concerned was a summary of previously reported news about the individual. The matter was ultimately settled by the newspaper issuing a clarification. The effect of Ireland’s current defamation law was described as “extremely crippling” and having a “very serious chilling effect”, meaning that if a story carried any risk of triggering a complaint it would likely not be run, unless it was worthy of the front page.
  • A local news reporter estimated they had received 20 legal threats in their 25-year career.
  • One national reporter described being sued by a property developer for reporting on safety defects in buildings. The case was never concluded, and the journalist concerned believes it was not taken to win, but as a tactic to help the developer to continue to secure business deals as he could downplay the allegations as being contested in legal proceedings. “Naturally it never went anywhere, because he didn’t have a leg to stand on,” the journalist said. “He was using the system to deflect from the fact he’d built appalling apartments at the start of the boom. This is typical – you issue proceedings and you let the thing sit there, with the hope the newspaper will settle, and you can claim a victory one way or another.”
  • In one case, a civil society organisation was threatened with a defamation suit for highlighting privatisation in medical care by a business with interests in the sector. It never went to court and the complaints were considered legally doubtful, but due to the threat of the costs involved in defending a case the organisation was forced to delete communications, shut down campaigning on this issue, and keep the whole matter a secret.
  • One freelance journalist disclosed they were currently subject to two defamation proceedings, describing them as “expensive” to defend against. Regarding the effect on reporting, the reporter said “we all have to be more careful” due to the increased litigiousness of certain parts of society.
  • A political party was said to have sent defamation threats to two different media organisations in response to their press office being contacted with a request for comment about a story.
  • Documentary footage of personal interviews about a tragic news event was radically cut due to legal pressure, leaving the parts that were left in “pointless”, according to a filmmaker. “Viewing of the finished film was agreed – and within hours we were threatened with legal action. Five whole minutes were cut out from different places leaving a huge hole,” the filmmaker said. “It stopped people being themselves, saying how it made them feel. Not true to the tragedy either.”
  • One author described receiving a letter from a politician after publishing a book in which the politician was mentioned, demanding monetary compensation and that copies be immediately removed from the shelves. “I can still relate to the feeling when I got that letter about the book,” the author said. “For a day I was in a state. It’s very stressful. It’s particularly stressful when you know you didn’t do anything wrong.”
  • In one case, a then-member of the government was given a payout of several thousands by a newspaper because it had made a mistake with their name in copy, mixing them up with someone else with a similar name, according to a journalist familiar with the incident. The amount given to the politician would have paid for 20 freelance articles.
  • One major media organisation changed plans to cover the issue of concussion in sport after receiving legal threats, according to the journalist who wanted to report on the story.
  • One broadcaster chose to cover a story about a politician through a pre-recorded interview, rather than their usual live debate panel format, because the politician concerned is reputed to be litigious. The decision was taken to reduce the risk that any stray remarks live on air could trigger a defamation threat, journalists were told.
  • One organisation chose not to publish a story about politicians threatening media organisations with defamation proceedings, because the subject was deemed legally risky, a journalist involved with the story said.
  • One major news organisation has stopped almost all reporting about certain politicians due to legal threats, two journalists said.
  • In one case, a state contractor threatened to sue a reporter if a story involving them was published, according to the journalist concerned.
  • One civil society organisation working on accountability was threatened with defamation proceedings by a commercial interest over a report they had published. Years later the case has yet to reach court, but the organisation has lost its professional indemnity insurance as a result. The case was taken “to mess with us”, rather than with the hopes of succeeding in court, an employee at the NGO said, adding that they believed the process was being deliberately drawn out. “We spent a lot of time doing this, instead of what we should be doing.”
  • One person who had wished to speak to journalists about a story involving a politician said that aggressive threats of legal proceedings had repeatedly been sent to the home of their elderly parents. They believe this was done deliberately “to humiliate and embarrass me” and “to scare” other people away from speaking to the press. The costs of responding to the letters have been roughly €1,000 a month for six months.

The playbook

The legal threat typically arrives by letter or email. The wording can be highly aggressive, often instructing the receiver that the contents of the letter must be kept confidential, or there will be further repercussions.

This goes against advice issued by the Solicitors Regulation Authority in the United Kingdom, which has warned solicitors against getting involved in so-called strategic lawsuits against public participation or SLAPPs, which involves abusive litigation that is aimed to silence critics.

The SRA warned solicitors against using excessively intimidating language, issuing far-fetched threats about fines or imprisonment, or sending such letters as part of a “public relations” strategy as a way to stop journalists from reporting a true story. The body has reminded law firms that solicitors have a duty to act with honesty and integrity.

The body also warned against sending correspondence that is marked as “confidential” or similar when this has no legal foundation, against sending excessive numbers of letters, and against pursuing “unnecessary and onerous procedural applications, intended to waste time or increase costs”.

Research for this report revealed that all these tactics are used in Ireland to prevent the publication of information of public importance, the hallmark of a SLAPP. Some interviewees called for the Law Society of Ireland to issue similar guidance as the SRA.

The interviews indicated this is an all-island issue, with some solicitors appearing to specialise in selecting the most favourable jurisdiction between London, Belfast, and Dublin, or threatening their targets with multiple proceedings in different jurisdictions at once.

Those who tend to take aggressive defamation proceedings are most commonly business owners or politicians, according to interviews for this report. The politicians who have launched or threatened defamation proceedings against Irish journalists and news outlets span the political spectrum.

But what unites the people who do this is that they have the monetary means, and that they tend to use legal intimidation repeatedly. Some business leaders and politicians have gained a reputation for being particularly litigious, which can make newsrooms more hesitant to report about them.

Journalists described solicitors’ letters arriving in a predictable pattern, with some politicians seeming to keep lawyers on retainer for the purposes of aggressive reputation management.

During the past year a series of defamation cases taken by politicians against journalists and media organisations on the island of Ireland – including by Sinn Féin MLA Gerry Kelly, Left independent MEPs Mick Wallace and Clare Daly, and Sinn Féin leader Mary Lou McDonald – have been flagged for press freedom concerns.

The interviews revealed that such cases are the tip of the iceberg. Only a fraction of the defamation threats received by media organisations and journalists go to court, or even go beyond an initial warning letter. But each letter received, regardless of the merits of its complaints, imposes onerous costs on already thinly-stretched media organisations.

National reporter:

I think journalists who say that legal actions don’t affect their future behaviour aren’t being honest. If you get a legal letter from someone, the very fact of its existence will determine how and in some cases if, you write about that person again. A positive effect could be that you will research a piece even more thoroughly, upping your number of sources for example. But a negative is that you may censor yourself or not even write a piece at all.

Some people are serial litigants and that makes people wary of going near them in terms of media coverage. This is particularly problematic if the people concerned are politicians which has been the case with me. It is undemocratic not to report on certain politicians because you are fearful of legal action even when you know a story is true and in the public interest.

In my experience, some people including Irish politicians send legal letters even when they are aware the story is accurate just as a shot across the bows. And some newspapers issue an apology or clarification even when none is warranted, just to avoid costly litigation. Needless to say, this is disastrous for a free press.

The fact that politicians are so well paid and resourced compared to journalists (in an Irish context anyway) adds to the pressure. In the case of two politicians I have experience of litigation with, they appear to keep a solicitor on retainer. Still I like to think myself and my immediate colleagues ultimately remain undaunted in our bid to give fair, accurate and informative coverage.

‘Getting it legalled’

Significant day-to-day costs are imposed on newsrooms by the administrative burden and legal fees required to pay solicitors to systematically check articles for potential legal risks and to respond to continual threats to sue.

A baseless accusation of defamation that may have no chance in court nevertheless may therefore still cost hundreds of euros an hour in solicitors’ fees to respond to, while sucking up time for thinly-resourced newsrooms.

The process of having an article checked by a solicitor for legal risk has been adopted as routine practice in many Irish news organisations, imposing steep costs on a struggling industry. It’s known as “getting it legalled”.

The practice of “legalling” shapes reporting, as reporters learn how to craft articles that won’t be flagged as risky by lawyers. Public interest vies with legal risk as a consideration for publication. Reporters said this can muffle the clarity of the information conveyed and commonly leads to details being pre-emptively watered down to avoid a complaint, even when the facts of the story are demonstrable and clear.

An editor at one local newspaper apologised for being exhausted when contacted for an interview. The editor said they had had to work well past midnight the previous night to “legal” articles in time for their print deadline, and had been up early the next morning to care for children, a small illustration of the daily burden imposed on journalists by the stringent defamation environment.

The outlet had explored the possibility of getting insurance against defamation, the editor said, but was told that this was subject to conditions that were impossible to accept. These included getting each contributor to agree to indemnify the outlet, and being prepared to settle rather than fight any claim, regardless of its merits.

The very largest organisations may have an in-house lawyer employed on staff. Smaller news organisations often rely on the legal training of their journalists. Some staff at smaller magazines either have law degrees or are qualified lawyers themselves as well as journalists, something that can be important for smaller outlets to keep going as it reduces the initial upfront costs of responding to defamation threats.

Editor at a small publication:

We obviously try not to let the fear of being sued change what we cover, but it’s there hanging over us all the time. We know that even if we get everything right, a person could sue us, and we’d have to defend the case, which would cost a minimum of tens of thousands of euro, and could easily reach into six or seven figures if it goes to trial. We don’t have insurance and don’t have the money to pay for that up front, even with the prospect of recouping it if we won and costs were awarded to us — we’d have to either get pro bono representation or concede the case and grovel for mercy. It’s very stressful. Sometimes people threaten to sue us if we publish anything about them at all… we just have to guess whether they are serious or bluffing, and decide whether the story is important enough to be worth taking the risk of publishing it in these circumstances.

National reporter:

I’ve probably received around a dozen legal letters threatening defamation action in response to reporting on organisations or individuals over the last five years. In many cases we have been able to publish despite the threats, but in some cases, even where our story is backed up by solid documentation and proof, the threat of a costly legal case (even one which our media organisation might eventually win) has meant a number of stories have been spiked, sometimes meaning information that would be in the public interest is kept from the public. Ireland’s defamation laws are overwhelmingly weighted towards protecting the powerful, and against journalists doing their job.

The costs

It’s typical for news organisations to pay a solicitor to respond to each defamation threat they receive, with rates said to start from €350 an hour. These fees escalate the further a legal complaint goes, with costs rapidly rising into the thousands and tens of thousands once barristers or senior counsel are involved.

One small outlet with limited resources described securing a ‘mates rates’ arrangement with a lawyer to help respond to the frequent defamation threats they receive. Another small publication, which is loss-making, spent €10,000 defending one case before it was dropped.

A journalist at a national publication said that the legal advice they received was to settle any complaint with compensation as a default, because even in the case of victory with full costs awarded to the media organisation, the complaining party would delay or avoid paying out the money owed.

“You’ll have spent fifty grand defending a story that is absolutely true,” the journalist said. “The legal advice is: give them ten grand and get them to go away. Cut your losses.”

“In 80 or 90 percent of cases you’re talking about a mistake, not something malicious,” the journalist continued. “Stuff I do gets legalled any time there’s a hint of anything – the newspaper does it routinely, every day. If they think there’s an issue they’ll refer it to a solicitor.”

Apart from the direct monetary cost involved, the process of referring articles for checking by a solicitor, responding to the solicitors’ questions and reviewing their advice takes up working hours of editors and reporters in newsrooms that are already thinly staffed.

One small publication said they did not have the money to fight objections. “We’ve fought and won a few [cases]. But usually we just delete or take down, as our resources aren’t able for a prolonged scrap,” the founder said.

In response to a query from this author, Tom Lyons of business publication The Currency said he had received legal threats “at least 30 times”. He shared an image from a legal firm representing an Irish businessman. An objection that a number written as €2.88 billion instead of €3 billion in the article “was used to undermine the entire story”, he said.

Fears within media organisations that publicly disclosing a threat could escalate the dispute means that media organisations and journalists participate in keeping the scale of the issue unknown to the public.

But there is one major media organisation for which figures are available. Because it is a public body, national broadcaster RTÉ is required to disclose data about the cost of its legal proceedings under Freedom of Information requests.

RTÉ has been hit with 29 sets of legal proceedings over the six years to 2022, according to data released to the Irish Examiner. These cumulatively cost RTÉ €4.7 million, with some costs still accruing as proceedings are not concluded – an average of €160,000 per case.

National reporter:

It had a huge impact on my own confidence and my own career. It was my biggest story to date, and it was canned because of a solicitor’s letter.

Video reporter:

I was threatened by a state representative and was called, emailed, with veiled threats to not cover the story. I immediately reduced editorial risk. They knew where I lived. The effect is absolute. It waters down, it hides facts… It suppresses free speech about your own personal experience.

Why is it like this?

Ireland’s defamation laws are considered to be among the harshest in Europe and have been criticised as excessive by the European Court of Human Rights, the Council of Europe, the European Commission, and various media freedom organisations. The International Press Institute has previously described Irish defamation trials as “wildly unpredictable”.

As IPI previously reported, a history of juries awarding vast damages to complainants is considered to have had a chilling effect on journalists’ ability to freely report, and the lack of transparency about how the level of compensation is determined has been criticised by Ireland’s Supreme Court.

The prominent left-wing politician Proinsias De Rossa was awarded €380,000 in 1999, a communications consultant was awarded €1.25 million in 2014, and an initial award of €10 million to a former company executive was reduced on appeal to €250,000 in 2019. These are a level of damages that could bankrupt some media organisations at a stroke.

In contrast, Austria caps damages at €50,000 for the worst cases, while typical damages in the Netherlands range from €1,000 to €5,000.

Aside from the well-known stringency of Irish defamation law and the history of large payouts, interviewees for this article revealed a number of indirect factors that restrict how free journalists feel to report facts that are in the public interest.

These include the high fees required by solicitors to reply to threats of legal action – a cost imposed regardless of the merits of the initial complaint or its likelihood of succeeding in court – as well as the long length of proceedings, which can drag on for years without conclusion.

Some journalists believed that complainants seek to draw their cases out as long as possible deliberately, potentially never intending to bring the issue to court. This means that the defamation threat ‘hangs over’ the reporter or media organisation for years without conclusion. Litigants use this as leverage over the media organisations, the journalists said, because a pending and unresolved legal case can persuade editors to smother further reporting on the individual concerned.

In addition, some journalists also spoke of a risk-averse culture among management and the solicitors that advise media organisations, which they say leads to a conservative approach to publishing and a self-imposed silence about defamation cases, keeping the scale of the problem from being publicly known.

Two interviewees said insurance companies were imposing difficult conditions as a condition for providing indemnity cover, such as that media organisations commit to settling complaints with out-of-court payouts as a default, something they warned could be incentivising further complaints.

National reporter:

I have been subject to several threats of litigation over the years. The cases where media organisations have gotten something wrong are probably those easiest dealt with, as when there is a genuine mistake it can be dealt with quickly. But it is those where powerful individuals in politics or business want to stifle debate which can have the most chilling effect. These individuals just allow the “proceedings” to sit there for months and years without taking any real steps to go to court where costs and legal determination might become involved. In a legal system such as Ireland’s, with its draconian defamation laws, this can have the effect of stopping all reporting on the individual concerned. The [media] organisation takes the view that they will defend the initial threat in court if needs be, but then becomes paranoid that any subsequent coverage could cause them to lose that case. The result is that in my organisation, all reportage of the doings of that powerful individual or anything associated with them, goes through such a restrictive legal review that in most cases subsequent stories are dropped. The SLAPP in action.

What can be done?

government review of defamation law recommended last year that defamation trials should no longer have juries, which is an unusual practice in Europe.

The government has proposed a reform of the law to protect “responsible public interest journalism”, to encourage corrections and apologies as a remedy where possible, and to take measures to reduce legal costs and delays.

However, the government stopped short of proposing a cap on damages, arguing that this would be too rigid. The promised legislative reform has yet to be carried out.

The European Commission has proposed introducing a directive with the aim to “protect targets of SLAPPs and prevent the phenomenon from further expanding in the EU”. The scope is limited to cases with cross-border implications, because defamation falls under the competence of national law.

The Commission proposal would encourage member states to include safeguards in their national laws to address “manifestly unfounded or abusive cases for civil matters” with cross-border implications.

This would mean allowing courts to dismiss “manifestly unfounded” cases at an early stage, with the burden of proof falling to the claimant. Claimants would have to shoulder all legal costs if cases are dismissed as abusive, and courts would have the power to impose penalties for the taking of abusive cases. Targets of SLAPPs could also claim compensation. EU countries should also refuse to recognise a judgement from a non-EU country if the case is abusive or “manifestly unfounded” under national law.

The Commission has also encouraged the abolishment of prison sentences for defamation, the use of civil law rather than criminal law, and training of both legal professionals and potential targets of SLAPPs to encourage better recognition of the phenomenon.

The Irish government has expressed support for the Commission’s proposal. However, there are now concerns that the draft is being significantly watered down as it is negotiated with EU member states.

In March, members of the Ireland Anti-SLAPP Network wrote to the Irish government expressing its concern at a newly published compromise version of the directive. The letter accused the new draft of “watering down crucial protections and radically narrowing the scope of the procedural safeguards”, including by making the bar for pre-trial dismissal of cases so high it would “render the proposed early dismissal mechanism entirely redundant”.

“It is difficult to see how the mechanisms proposed in the compromise proposals would make any material difference to those targeted by SLAPPs. It is therefore crucial that the Department of Justice acts now to ensure that the European Council does not water down the provisions in the EC’s proposed directive, but rather builds on them to ensure robust protections are in place against SLAPPs in Europe.”

This article was comissioned by IPI as part of its work in the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR), a Europe-wide mechanism which tracks, monitors and responds to violations of press and media freedom in EU Member States and candidate countries. The project is co-funded by the European Commission.

MFRR 3 consortium logos

MFRR Summit 2023 | Day 2

MFRR Summit 2023 | Day 2

SLAPPs, Impunity, and Rule of Law


Across Europe we regularly see powerful entities abusing legal systems to stifle and smother critical reporting. Strategic litigation poses a major threat to independent media across the continent, in particular in countries where rule of law is weakest and vulnerable to abuse. Day 2 of the Summit will shine a spotlight on these topics as experts discuss initiatives to counter SLAPPs, impunity for crimes against journalists, and disinformation laws.

Keynote: Fundamental rights and the rule of law in the EU

Taking stock and the way forward

12:30 – 13:00 CET

Day 2 of the MFRR Summit 2023 will open with a keynote address from Andreas Accardo, Head of Institutional Cooperation and Networks Unit, European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. Picking up on the theme set out by UNESCO concerning the World Press Freedom Day, “Shaping a Future of Rights”, this keynote will offer a perspective on how the EU can remain a role of model for human rights by responding to global developments in a fundamental rights compliant manner. A key element in this regard is the civic space, the role of civil society organisations, human rights defenders and journalists in upholding the rule of law and a fundamental rights culture.


  • Andreas Accardo, Head of Institutional Cooperation and Networks Unit, European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights

Taking steps towards ending SLAPPs

13:00 – 13:45 CET

European institutions have already established some standards through recommendations on how to counter Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) while more European legislative and non-legislative initiatives are expected to be finalised in the upcoming months and years. At national level, civil society and other stakeholders have joined forces to push for measures that would discourage SLAPPs and help targets. This panel will bring together representatives from the Coalition Against SLAPPs in Europe (CASE) and various Anti-SLAPP national groups to discuss measures being taken at national level to counter SLAPPs.


  • Marzena Blaszczyk, Board Member, Citizens Network Watchdog Poland
  • Susan Coughtrie, Director, Foreign Policy Centre, co-chair, UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition
  • Charlotte Michils, Legal Adviser Flemish/Belgian Association of Journalists & Lecturer Thomas More


  • Flutura Kusari, Senior Legal Advisor, European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)

Media, politics, and vexatious lawsuits

An Italian perspective

13:45 – 14:00 CET

In recent months, Italy has drawn the attention of several international organisations working on media freedom. A cause for concern is the rapid succession of defamation lawsuits and subsequent legal proceedings against Italian journalists and intellectuals brought up by politicians and high-ranking public figures. By exploring the case study of Italian newspaper Domani – which in a matter of months has been respectively threatened to be sued and sued by two high profile public figures – we will discuss defamation, SLAPPs, and the challenges Italian media face when reporting on public figures.


  • Francesca De Benedetti, Journalist, Domani



  • Dr. Sielke Beata Kelner, Researcher and Advocacy officer, Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso Transeuropa

Disinformation laws

Regulating the truth

14:15 – 15:00 CET

In Hungary, Greece, and Turkey governments have passed laws to regulate the basis of factuality under the title of “Disinformation Laws”. This session is going to bring forth the national contexts under which these laws have been drafted and passed, and how they have been implemented so far under different circumstances.


  • Dr. Kerem Altıparmak, Legal Consultant, International Commission of Jurists; Co-founder, Freedom of Expression Association
  • Tasos Telloglou, Journalist, Ekathimerini
  • Blanka Zoldi, Editor-in-chief, Lakmusz


  • Tom Gibson, EU Representative and Advocacy Manager, Committee to Protect Journalists

Rule of Law Reports

Protecting media pluralism and independence?

15:15 – 15:35 CET

The short panel will discuss the potential of the Rule of Law (RoL) mechanism by looking at the experience of transnational coalitions employing the RoL report for Europe-wide advocacy work. It will address the following key questions: How can European mechanisms such as the Rule of Law (RoL) report contribute to strengthening the protection of independent journalism across Europe? To what extent does it help foster an open and informed debate in member countries?


  • Tom Gibson, EU Representative and Advocacy Manager, Committee to Protect Journalists
  • Andrea Menapace, Executive Director, Italian Coalition for Civil Liberties and Rights (CILD)


  • Serena Epis, Editor and Researcher, Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso Transeuropa

Significance of Public Inquiry process in combating the culture of impunity

15:50 – 16:10 CET

Impunity has an impact much wider than the person or outlet that has been the target of a crime; it also affects the whole media sector as well as leaving their target audience in the dark. The murder cases of Daphne Caruana Galizia, Jan Kuciak, and Giorgos Karaivaz have all left a stain in recent years, as have the declarations of “cold cases” for journalist murders. This session will discuss the cases of impunity in recent years in Europe, its impact on media freedom and people’s right to access information, and the significance of the public inquiry process as part of calls for justice.


  • Therese Comodini Cachia, Human Rights Lawyer
  • Corinne Vella, Head of media relations, The Daphne Caruana Galizia Foundation


  • Sarah Clarke, Head of the Europe and Central Asia team, Article 19 Europe

Bolster Your Digital Safety

An Anti-Hacking, Anti-Doxing Workshop

17:00 – 18:30 CET

Learn to better protect yourself from impersonation, hacking, and doxing (the publishing of private info). With your devices in hand, join PEN America and Freedom of the Press Foundation for an interactive workshop where we’ll teach you how to audit your social media accounts, tighten your privacy settings, and track your personal information online so you can maintain the public profile you need to do your job.


Please note that this workshop is a closed event. You must register using the button below, even if you have already registered for the Summit.


  • Jeje Mohamed, Senior Manager, Digital Safety and Free Expression at PEN America
  • Harlo Holmes, Chief Information Security Officer & Director of Digital Security at Freedom of the Press Foundation
Italy's Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni is accusing Roberto Salvani of defamation. Allgemein

Italy: Lawsuits against Saviano and Domani highlight wider SLAPP…

Italy: Lawsuits against Saviano and Domani highlight wider SLAPP problem

Ongoing litigation against media by new PM and Defence Minister raise media freedom concerns


By IPI contibutor Christian Elia

In recent weeks there has been much talk in Italy about a recently opened legal case against the journalist and writer Roberto Saviano, who is accused of defamation in a lawsuit filed in 2020 by Giorgia Meloni, the new prime minister. Saviano had called Meloni and Lega leader Matteo Salvini ‘bastards’ during a La7 television programme for their policy on rescuing migrants at sea.

There have been multiple stances in defence of Saviano in newspapers and by associations for freedom of the press and freedom of expression. They have been critical of Meloni and of Salvini, who is a plaintiff in the trial, and say that Meloni’s lawsuit is intimidatory and aimed at discouraging criticism of Saviano and her.

This is not an isolated incident, however. At the end of November 2021, Prime Minister Meloni also filed a defamation case against the daily newspaper Domani. The court decided to indict journalist Emiliano Fittipaldi and the newspaper’s editor-in-chief, Stefano Feltri, over a year-old article about Meloni, who was not prime minister at the time.

The article dates back to October 2021 and reported on Domenico Arcuri, former extraordinary commissioner for the Covid emergency. Arcuri mentioned, talking to magistrates, the names of some MPs who, according to him, had contacted him to promote individuals or companies able to supply masks on “far less advantageous” terms. The MPs included Meloni, Domani reported.

In response, Meloni has demanded €25,000 in damages from the newspaper. The requested financial compensation is part of civil proceedings that can be claimed in addition to criminal proceedings, which is the legal framework for “aggravated defamation” lawsuits.

“Until a law on reckless litigation is passed, lawsuits and civil lawsuits remain the sword of Damocles over freedom of information in the country”, Feltri said in an article.

Domani’s journalists have also pointed out that while is possible for Meloni to sue the newspaper, the PM – herself under investigation for aggravated defamation for a tweet against one of her former candidates – is sheltering      behind parliamentary protections from prosecution.

“Meloni as a ‘citizen, journalist and politician’, as she had her lawyer write, decided to take this newspaper to trial but her personal position has changed. As prime minister she is called upon to protect among the constitutional values also freedom of expression of all, also because as a ‘politician she can already protect her own,’” the journalists of Domani wrote.

The new Italian government had already come out against Domani. Last month, Defence Minister Guido Crosetto had announced his intention to sue the newspaper for defamation over an investigation by journalists Emiliano Fittipaldi and Giovanni Tizian into the current minister’s potential conflict of interest with companies in the sector he now oversees. For now, Minister Crosetto has not followed up on the announcement.

Italy’s SLAPP problem

The president of the Federazione Nazionale della Stampa Italiana (FNSI), Giuseppe Giulietti, recalled how ”the law to oppose gagging complaints and punish reckless actions has been at a standstill since 2002 and will remain so due to increasingly clear transversal intentions”.

The law Giulietti is referring to is the law against SLAPPs, as lawsuits are called in which there is a gross disproportion of power between the person or organization suing and the accused. The goal of accusers or plaintiffs in SLAPP cases is not necessarily to win the case, but to intimidate the defendant – even if only through the many burdens and effects of a trial – and discourage his or her work, taking away time, money and initiative. Plaintiffs also take advantage of the public bias against the presumption of innocence, placing the defendant in a position of weakness and risk.

Most of the time the accusation in SLAPP cases is defamation, and these cases are almost always directed at journalists, bloggers or activists who have written or said something in public that someone claims is defamatory against them. The consequences can be both criminal and civil.In Italy, both civil and criminal lawsuits are often referred to as “querele temerarie” (reckless lawsuits), with some confusion: “querela”, however, in legal language refers only to criminal cases. They are referred to as “reckless” because they are brought despite the uncertainty of the final outcome, but precisely for the purpose of responding or threatening the defendant.

2016 dossier edited by the association Ossigeno per l’informazione, based on data provided by the Ministry of Justice, estimated that around 70 per cent of defamation lawsuits are dropped by the public prosecutor and therefore do not go to trial.

There is no more recent data, but lawyer Andrea Di Pietro, who has been dealing with the issue for many years, said in an interview that in 2019 the ministry confirmed to Ossigeno that that percentage was still valid. According to him and several other experts in the field, it probably still is today.Until recently, Article 13 of Law 47 of 1948 on the press, which set forth a mandatory term of imprisonment from one to six years “in the event of conviction for libel in the press committed by attributing a specific fact”, was also taken into account for defamation in the press.

This article was declared illegitimate in June last year by the Constitutional Court. By contrast, the court deemed Article 595 of the Criminal Code, which deals with defamation, compatible with the Constitution, since that provision allows the judge to apply a prison sentence only in cases of exceptional gravity and in all other cases to limit it to a fine.

Article 595 of the Criminal Code concerns anyone who”’by communicating with several persons, offends the reputation of others”. It is punishable by imprisonment of up to two years or a fine of up to EUR 2,065, but both can be increased if the offence is against “a political, administrative or judicial body”.

In the case of defamation “in the press” – a definition that today includes both newspapers and other media, e.g. social networks, and therefore potentially concerns almost everyone – the penalty can be up to three years and the fine is at least EUR 516.

EU anti-SLAPP directive on the way

After years of calls for action, last April the European Commission presented two measures that are still awaiting approval. The first is a legislative proposal for a directive that would intervene precisely on the problems of civil lawsuits, which also exist in Italy: the most important measure is the introduction of a mechanism that would allow civil lawsuits that are manifestly unfounded to be dismissed quickly.

This mechanism, should the directive be approved, will, however, only be valid for cases of European relevance: i.e. cases relating to articles or public speeches involving, for example, more than one EU member country.

The directive also envisages protection for journalists working in the EU who receive convictions from courts in non-EU states, and penalties to discourage the frequent use of SLAPPs, including the possibility for an accused party who proves his or her innocence to claim damages from the plaintiff.

The other measure proposed by the European Commission is a recommendation to member states to implement measures to encourage this kind of practice in their national legislation. The recommendation, however, is not binding, and much will depend on whether and how it is implemented in each country.

The next hearing in Saviano’s trial has been set for December 12, 2022. Many journalists and members of the cultural world will be present at the hearing in support of the defendant. In the courtroom will also be the president of the FNSI, Giuseppe Giulietti, and the spokesperson of Articolo 21, an association that fights for press freedom, Elisa Marincola, as well as a delegation of CASE Italia observers who are following the case with a view to write a repor.

“It is necessary to say ‘enough to reckless lawsuits’ with a law that at this point can only be induced by the European Directive given that the Italian Parliament has failed to produce even a minimal amendment that could act as a deterrent against gag lawsuits,” Giulietti commented.

This article is part of IPI’s series “Media freedom in Europe in shadow of Covid”, which comprises news and analysis from IPI’s network of correspondets throughout the EU. Articles do not necessarily reflect the views of IPI. The reporting series is supported by funding from the Friedrich Naumann Foundation for FReedom and by the European Commission (DG Connect) as part of the Media Freedom Rapid Response coalition.

MFRR 3 consortium logos

Italy: Prime Minister sues Domani newspaper for defamation

Italy: Prime Minister sues Domani newspaper for defamation

Italian defamation laws are once again being misused by Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni to silence and threaten independent journalism in Italy. The undersigned organisations call for the lawsuit against the newspaper Domani to be dropped and for the Italian Parliament to adopt a comprehensive reform of defamation laws in Italy.

In October 2021, the current Prime Minister, at the time member of the Italian Parliament and leader of the far-right party Fratelli d’Italia,  initiated legal action for aggravated criminal defamation against Emiliano Fittipaldi and Stefano Feltri, respectively correspondent and editor of the daily national newspaper Domani. The lawsuit originated from an article that raised questions over an obscure procurement process of face masks during the first waves of the Covid-19 pandemic. In particular, the article was investigating the alleged role Meloni played in influencing Domenico Arcuri, then Covid Commissioner, by recommending certain suppliers for medical equipment intended for the Italian healthcare system. According to the authors of the article, her interference in the process consisted of endorsing Fabio Pietrella, a businessperson and newly elected Fratelli d’Italia member of the Parliament, for the procured services. 

Prime Minister Meloni is requesting damages with an interim compensation of 25,000 euros from the newspaper. After a preliminary hearing, which took place on 15 November, the public prosecutor decided to open a criminal defamation trial, which is due to begin on 10 July, 2024.

Our organisations have consistently advocated for a reform of both civil and criminal defamation laws in Italy to bring legislation in line with international freedom of expression standards and the recent Constitutional Court rulings. In its 2020 and 2021 decisions, the court urged the Parliament to enact a comprehensive reform of defamation laws in Italy. As of today, the Parliament has failed to respond to such calls.

In April 2022, the European Commission put forward a Directive proposal that would prompt EU member states to take action to counter Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) in civil law cases for matters with trans-border application. The proposal on SLAPPs is expected to be adopted in 2023 after discussion and a vote by the Council of the EU and the European Parliament. Alongside the directive proposal, the European Commission has formulated a set of Recommendations identifying a number of measures meant to counter both vexatious criminal and civil lawsuits. Furthermore, according to international and European human rights law, top public officials should tolerate a higher degree of scrutiny and criticism than others, in light of the public position they hold. 

Our organisations acknowledge with growing concern the rising number of SLAPP cases against journalists brought by public officials in Italy against those who express dissent or inform the public on contentious issues, question their work or, as in the present case, expose alleged wrongdoing. 

We call on Prime Minister Meloni to withdraw the defamation lawsuit against Italian newspaper Domani and to initiate a reform process of defamation laws in the country to avoid the abuse of vexatious lawsuits against the public interest. We also call on the Italian Parliament to begin comprehensive reform of defamation laws in line with international freedom of expression standards as soon as possible. Such reform should centre on the decriminalisation of defamation and set limits within civil law on the amount in damages that can be sought to avoid creating undue obstacles to the journalistic profession. 

Furthermore, this reform should address specific challenges posed by SLAPPs against journalists within the Italian framework. While the Italian Civil Procedural Code includes some provisions aimed at countering SLAPPs – article 96 provides that those plaintiffs who filed a lawsuit in ‘bad faith’ must compensate the defendant – judges rarely recur to this provision in practice. Within this context, we also urge the Parliament to start a discussion to follow up on the Recommendations included in the EU Anti-SLAPPs initiative and to support the adoption of an advanced text of the EU Anti-SLAPPs Directive.  

An Anti-SLAPPs Working Group in Italy, part of the Coalition Against SLAPPs in Europe (CASE), brings together representatives of the world of journalism and civil society in Italy to raise awareness about SLAPPs and sustain advocacy towards a set of measures that would effectively counter them.

Signed by:

  • ARTICLE 19 Europe 
  • Articolo 21 
  • European Federation of Journalists (EFJ) 
  • International Press Institute (IPI) 
  • OBC Transeuropa (OBCT) 
  • The Good Lobby Italia

This statement was coordinated by the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR), a Europe-wide mechanism which tracks, monitors and responds to violations of press and media freedom in EU Member States and candidate countries.

MFRR 3 consortium logos

Greece: SLAPP award winner Grigoris Dimitriadis urged to drop…

Greece: SLAPP award winner Grigoris Dimitriadis urged to drop defamation lawsuits

The undersigned international media freedom and journalists organisations wrote to Grigoris Dimitriadis to express concern about defamation claims filed against investigative journalists and media outlets following his resignation from the role of general secretary in the office of the Greek Prime Minister in August 2022.

21 October 2022


Dear Grigoris Dimitriadis,


The undersigned international media freedom and journalists organisations are writing to you to express our shared concern about defamation claims filed against investigative journalists and media outlets following your resignation from the role of general secretary in the office of the Greek Prime Minister in August 2022.


Our organisations have closely assessed these five legal claims and believe they classify as Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs): abusive litigation filed by powerful individuals aimed at silencing and intimidating legitimate watchdog journalism.


The defamation lawsuit you filed against newspaper Efimerida ton Syntakton (EFSYN), investigative online portal Reporters United and their reporters Nikola Leontopoulos and Thodoris Chondrogiannos, and freelance journalist Thanasis Koukakis, is both retaliatory in nature and unfounded in merit.


Rather than a good faith effort to seek appropriate legal redress, we are concerned these lawsuits – ranging from between €150,000 and €250,000 – appear to be more an effort to punish the media whose investigations into your links with a company caught in the middle of a spyware scandal appear to have led to your resignation.


Demands for the articles of both independent media which published on August 4, 2022 to be removed from their respective websites are a clear attempt to muzzle professional investigative reporting on a matter of significant public interest and erase their revelations.


The legal action taken against Thanasis Koukakis, a journalist who was previously targeted with the Predator spyware marketed by the very firm you were established to have connections with, over his simple retweet of an investigative report, is a startling example of vexatious litigation.


We note that on 20 October you were awarded the ‘SLAPP Politician of the Year Award’ 2022 by the CASE Coalition at its European Anti-SLAPP contest 2022.


Upon your receival of this SLAPP award, we now take the opportunity to write to you directly to urge you to withdraw the legal complaints against all three journalists and both media outlets and to refrain from weaponizing the law to target public interest journalism in the future.


The case is a matter of serious concern amongst international journalists’ and media freedom organisations, European NGOs working on SLAPPs, and MEPs at the European Parliament and serves only to further erode media freedom in Greece at a troubling time.


Our organisations will continue to monitor the situation closely and push for full accountability for the recent abuses of spyware in Greece, as well as the development and implementation of effective anti-SLAPP legislation at the EU, Council of Europe and national levels. We hope to see your response soon.

Signed by:

  • ARTICLE 19 Europe 
  • European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF) 
  • European Federation of Journalists (EFJ) 
  • Free Press Unlimited (FPU) 
  • International Press Institute (IPI) 
  • OBC Transeuropa (OBCT)

This statement was coordinated by the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR), a Europe-wide mechanism which tracks, monitors and responds to violations of press and media freedom in EU Member States, Candidate Countries and Ukraine.

MFRR 3 consortium logos
picture alliance / NurPhoto | Manuel Dorati Library

Call for Italian political forces to take a stand…

Call for Italian political forces to take a stand against SLAPPs

A group of media freedom and journalists’ organisations have published a statement outlining a list of measures that must be adopted in order to protect victims of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) in Italy.

The right of citizens to be informed about matters of public interest and of journalists to write freely about them cannot and must not be hindered by SLAPPs. Civil society’s appeal to the future parliament to promote measures to contrast strategic lawsuits


SLAPPs (Strategic lawsuits against public participation) aim at silencing journalists, activists, whistleblowers, and anyone who sheds light on matters of public interest. SLAPPs are a true violation of the right of citizens to be informed and freedom of expression. SLAPPs also pose serious restrictions on democratic participation as they deprive the public debate of voices reporting on issues of public interest. The explicit goal of those who carry out legal actions against journalists and activists dealing with e.g. corruption, abuse of power, and environmental issues is to silence them – a threat to freedom of expression and the right to report.


The use of SLAPPs is widespread in Italy. The legal tool most commonly employed to instigate SLAPP cases is defamation, both civil and criminal. However, the right to privacy and the right to be forgotten are also misused to prevent the disclosure of inconvenient information. Often, legal threats even precede the publication of the investigation, triggering mechanisms of self-censorship.


The Italian Parliament has already been urged to abide by the recent Constitutional Court rulings on the issue of defamation. The Court, in fact, intervened with a decision in 2020 and a ruling in 2021 on the issue of the constitutionality of prison sentences for journalists in cases of press defamation, calling on the Parliament to remove the rules that provide for incarceration – except for cases of ‘exceptional gravity’ – and to promote a wide-ranging reform of the relevant legislation. Such a reform, which has remained stagnant and obstructed in previous legislatures, is necessary in order to hopefully reach an “effective balance between freedom of expression and the protection of reputation”, as the Court emphasised in 2021.


At the European level, last April the European Commission presented its response to the problem by drafting a two-pronged document: a directive on transnational cases, which will now have to follow its approval process between the EU Council and the European Parliament, and a recommendation with immediate but non-binding effect, which gathers precise indications to be applied in national cases. This was possible also thanks to an intense mobilisation of the Coalition against SLAPP in Europe (CASE), which gathers more than 40 European civil society organisations committed to combating SLAPPs.


European Commission Vice-President Vera Jourova calls the directive under discussion “Daphne’s law”, to remember Maltese journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia, killed in 2017 while being targeted with several legal proceedings, and whose tragic story helped to raise attention to the issue. The presentation of the proposal at European level was celebrated as a moment of historic significance, an achievement unthinkable until a few years ago.


This heritage must not be lost.


The European initiative should propel the urgent adoption of measures to protect SLAPP victims in Italy as well. Now it is up to the next Italian Parliament and Government to do their part. In view of the vote on 25 September, the signatories of this appeal ask all the candidates in the forthcoming elections and the political forces for a public commitment to support during the next legislature, in the European and national fora, the adoption of measures, within and beyond the legislative realm, to counter SLAPP.


Specifically, we call for:


  • the introduction of the issue of SLAPP as a priority on the Italian political agenda;
  • the launch of a comprehensive legal reform on defamation, both criminal and civil, in line with recent Constitutional Court rulings and the standards of international law on freedom of expression;
  • the introduction of a procedure for the timely dismissal of legal actions classifiable as SLAPP;
  •  the establishment of punitive and deterrent sanctions for SLAPP perpetrators;
  • the systematic and independent data collection and monitoring of intimidating legal acts by institutions in cooperation with civil society;
  • the continuation of the parliamentary intergroup dealing with information, media, and journalism and the effective engagement of its members in combating SLAPPs;
  • the implementation without delay of the guidelines contained in the European Recommendation for national cases;
  • the support, in the European fora, of the proposed anti-SLAPP Directive presented by the European Commission on 27 April 2022.


Thanks to an active network throughout Europe, civil society has made a fundamental contribution in formulating responses to prevent reckless lawsuits from restricting free expression, participation, and democracy. We will continue to advocate for the proposed measures to be adopted.


The appeal is open to all organisations and individuals who share these demands. List constantly being updated here.

Signed by:

  • Osservatorio Balcani Caucaso Transeuropa


  • Articolo 21

  • Transparency International Italia

  • Article 19 Europe

  • Environmental Paper Network

  • Greenpeace Italia

  • European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)

  • European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)

  • International Press Institute (IPI)

  • Festival dei Diritti Umani

  • Associazione Italiana Medici per l’Ambiente (ISDE)

  • info.nodes

  • Lega Italiana Antivivisezione (LAV)

  • Parliament Watch Italia

This statement was coordinated by the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR), a Europe-wide mechanism which tracks, monitors and responds to violations of press and media freedom in EU Member States, Candidate Countries and Ukraine.

MFRR 3 consortium logos
The Shift News Malta Library

Malta: IPI supports Shift News in unprecedented freedom of…

Malta: IPI supports Shift News in unprecedented freedom of information battle

The International Press Institute (IPI) and its global network stand behind our member The Shift News as it faces an unprecedented legal battle with the Maltese government over freedom of information requests it submitted linked to expenditure of public contracts.

IPI sees the case as emblematic of the problematic climate for transparency, journalists’ access to information and media freedom in Malta. We support The Shift in its public interest mission to scrutinize power and provide citizens with information about the use of taxpayer money.


The Shift, a small independent news outlet, today launched a fresh crowdfunding campaign to help pay the legal costs of fighting the FOI cases in court. The estimated expense of challenging all the cases is €40,000 – half of its operational budget for one year.


To safeguard its independence, the online newspaper is the only media outlet in Malta which refuses to accept funding or advertising contacts from the government or any political party and is instead run on a community-funded model.


The Shift is facing identical, taxpayer-funded appeals from 40 different government entities against the decision of the Maltese Information and Data Protection Commissioner to side with the media outlet and grant it access to contracts and payments made by public entities to Malta Today co-owner Saviour Balzan and his commercial entities.


The Appeals Tribunal has so far ruled on 12 of those cases, siding with The Shift and the Commissioner in all of them. Five state entities have so far filed secondary appeal lawsuits. Dozens more government bodies could eventually end up making additional appeals, initiating yet more time consuming and costly legal battles.


IPI and our global network stand firmly behind our member The Shift News, its Managing Editor Caroline Muscat, and the news outlet’s vital watchdog journalism mission in Malta”, said IPI Deputy Director Scott Griffen. “The clear public interest in releasing the requested information has already been recognized not once, but twice.


The continued efforts by the government to needlessly challenge these decisions drag out the process is inexplicable and seriously undermines transparency and the freedom of the press. We are concerned these coordinated appeals are also aimed at draining The Shift of time and resources that could otherwise be spent carrying out public service reporting.


We call on the government entities to immediately drop outstanding appeals, put an end to this absurd waste of taxpayer money, and provide the requested contacts in a timely manner. IPI also calls on its members around the world to join us in expressing support for The Shift and to consider donating to its crowdfunding campaign.


IPI is currently working with partner organizations to secure funding to help support The Shift’s legal defence and hopes to make further announcements in the coming days.


This statement by IPI is part of the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR), a Europe-wide mechanism which tracks, monitors and responds to violations of press and media freedom in EU Member States, Candidate Countries, and Ukraine. The project is co-funded by the European Commission.

MFRR 3 consortium logos
Panagiotis Kontoleon Greece Surveillance Library

Greece: EFJ demands full disclosure on illegal surveillance of…

Greece: EFJ demands full disclosure on illegal surveillance of journalists

The European Federation of Journalists (EFJ) condemns the legal actions aimed at muzzling and intimidating the press in the context of the scandal of illegal government practices in Greece, in particular the tapping of journalists and politicians.

The EFJ condemns the abusive legal proceedings launched on Friday 5 August by Grigoris Dimitriadis, resigning adviser and nephew of Greek Prime Minister Kyriákos Mitsotákis, against journalists Thanasis KoukakisNikolas Leontopoulos and Thodoris Chondrogiannos, as well as against the website Reporters United and the newspaper EfSyn.


“We demand the immediate withdrawal of these complaints, which are only intended to intimidate the press and prevent the exposure of the illegal and undemocratic practices of those in power in Greece”, said EFJ President Maja Sever.


On 29 July, the Director of the Greek National Intelligence Service (EYP), Panagiotis Kontoleon, who also resigned after the scandal was revealed, admitted to a parliamentary committee that his services had been monitoring journalist Thanasis Koukakis from 15 May to 12 August 2020. It was learned that the journalist had also been monitored by Predator spyware from 12 July to 24 September 2021.


“We call on the Greek judicial authorities to activate judicial investigations into private and public actors, including those close to the Prime Minister, who use Predator software to spy on journalists,” said EFJ General Secretary Ricardo Gutiérrez. “We call on them to shed light on the illegal tapping of journalists by the intelligence services and to identify and convict those responsible. Journalism is not a crime, but obstructing the work of journalists is a crime against democracy.”

This statement is part of the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR), a Europe-wide mechanism which tracks, monitors and responds to violations of press and media freedom in EU Member States, Candidate Countries and Ukraine.

MFRR 3 consortium logos