In the opinion Initiative against abusive litigation targeting journalists and rights defenders, the EESC gave its support to the Commission’s proposal to protect people from strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs). This includes journalists and rights defenders who are important contributors to debates on thorny issues.

The EESC approved the opinion at its plenary in October, and proposed expanding the list of measures to help curtail SLAPPs. Opinion rapporteur Tomasz Andrzej Wróblewski said: “If we do not strengthen the system, freedom of speech will be threatened.”

Co-rapporteur Christian Moos said: “It is an urgent, pressing political issue. We need action to defend journalists and people who speak out against abuse of power, against corruption.”

SLAPPs are used by certain powerful individuals, lobby groups, corporations and state bodies to silence journalists and others who contribute to public debate, like social activists, human rights defenders, non-governmental organisations, whistleblowers in the broad sense, engaged citizens, and trade unions. These legal actions take advantage of gaps in judicial systems to put forward groundless criminal or civil lawsuits that prevent, restrict or penalise public participation by the targeted individuals or groups.

The EESC's proposals include introducing a preliminary ruling that would terminate proceedings found to be non-compliant, and consolidating proceedings in a specific jurisdiction at the request of the defendant. Other measures could also be considered, including setting a time limit or a means for fast tracking the procedure. Another suggestion is to exclude the possibility for a person other than the plaintiff to fund SLAPPs.

Reviewing national legislation would also help identify mechanisms that could serve to counter SLAPPs. A unified approach should be taken in both cross-border and national cases, and a review of national laws should be undertaken with a view to decriminalising defamation in the remaining Member States where it is still criminalised.

The EESC also suggests shortening the proposed time until the evaluation of the proposed SLAPP directive from five years to two years.

Finally, education and training are crucial. Legal professionals and participants in the public debate need to be trained to be able to react against SLAPPs and to be better able to defend freedom of expression. (ll)