“Strategic lawsuits against public participation” (commonly dubbed "SLAPPs”) refer to threats of legal action with the aim of silencing journalists, activists, and other public watchdogs by forcing them into expensive and time-consuming legal battles. The goal of the plaintiff is to stifle public watchdogs right to free speech—not to win the lawsuit.

This form of abusive litigation continues to mushroom across Europe, but new legislation that has been years in the making was adopted in 2024. This month, an Anti-SLAPP conference held in Strasbourg (France) on November 14th discussed the progress recently made. Hundreds of participants from 25 countries were present, an outstanding attendance rate if we think of 2020. Four years ago, SLAPP was still a threat the majority of people in Europe were unaware of, including those who had encountered it.

According to Rebecca Bonello Ghio, Project and Policy Officer at the European Federation of Journalists (EFJ), it was in Amsterdam in 2020 that the movement against SLAPPs unofficially began, following a symposium given by experts to members of civil society and academia.

Initiatives were set in motion then. Organizations focused on creating legislation and drawing attention to the phenomenon and its scale. In 2022, the Coalition against SLAPP in Europe (CASE), which has been working with Amsterdam Law Clinics to compile and analyze SLAPP cases across Europe since 2019, recorded 570 incidents over the preceding 10 years, with a cumulative upward trend since 2015.

The relentless battle of civil society has paid off: the legislation for the Anti-SLAPP Directive was first proposed by the European Commission in 2022. At the end of 2023, the proposal was still being discussed by the European Council and the European Parliament. On February 27th, the European Parliament adopted with an overwhelming majority (546 in favor, 47 against, 31 abstentions) the Anti-SLAPP Directive, giving SLAPPs a definition. Three months later, on April 5th, the Council of Europe (CoE) adopted the recommendation on countering the use of SLAPPs, and the Directive Act was finally signed by the Parliament and the Council on April 11th.

This month’s conference is part of the ongoing work against these abusive litigations. It was led by Mr. Bjørn Berge, Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe, and co-organized by the Council of Europe, the Coalition Against SLAPPs in Europe (CASE), and the European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF).

Opening the conference, Berge said: “Our new recommendation, the range of our activities, and this conference are, together, the manifestation of our determination to do everything so that journalists, academics, and authors can exercise their profession without obstacle or hindrance to the freedom of the media and to freedom of expression.”

Bonello Ghio tells me the next bit of work is “the uphill battle” expected. She adds that the legislation discussed should be looked at as the “minimum requirements” for an anti-SLAPPs Directive.

Through the European Commission and the Council of Europe recommendations, member states are strongly encouraged to go beyond what is in the legislation, which has important limitations. One of these, according to Bonello Ghio, is that the anti-SLAPP Directive only addresses cross-border cases: the European Commission is not allowed to dictate member states’ internal laws. However, the member states are encouraged to implement the same legislation for purely domestic cases.

Although the consultation process has already begun in some member states, such as the Netherlands and the Republic of Ireland, the official implementation period is two years. This period is necessary to consider the legal nuances of each member state and modify the Directive accordingly. Rushing into the implementation could be a mistake, says Bonello Ghio.

“They [member states] should take their time, work with the European Commission, and with their national legislators to implement the Directive properly. They should ensure that they are consulting with civil society; at the end of the day, civil society has been at the forefront of the creation of the legislation.”

Bonello Ghio gives us the example of Malta, a country she knows well: “In Malta, for example, I wouldn’t see the fast implementation as a success because they disregarded civil society’s remarks. They rushed things and basically translated the Directive, which is a minimum standard of legislation. They implemented it as a law, which is a pity because you lose the opportunity to make a stronger regulation. So, they kind of missed the mark here.”

I asked Bonello Ghio what her thoughts after the conference were. She believes that the progress was great and agrees that much more needs to be done.

“Anybody who wants to harass and intimidate a journalist, an activist, or an academic and who has the financial and political means to do so will do so, regardless of SLAPP legislation, if not legislated well.”

She says that many member states still think of SLAPPs as being [only] a defamation case, but she “feels certain that once claiming defamation against journalists will become very difficult to do because of this legislation, then plaintiffs will move to using GDPR claims, which will become very difficult, or any other sort of claim to harass and intimidate.”

She adds that ultimately, this Directive should be seen as part of a broader culture to protect journalists and other individuals or organizations fighting for information as a public good. As Berge said, we “only see the tip of the iceberg."