Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on protecting persons who engage in public participation from manifestly unfounded or abusive court proceedings (“Strategic lawsuits against public participation”)
Date: 2022-04-27
Institutions: Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers, European Commission
Subjects: communications profession, cross-border cooperation, freedom of communication, freedom of expression, human rights, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, judicial proceedings, participatory democracy, political participation, right to justice

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 27.4.2022  COM(2022) 177 final 2022/0117 (COD)  Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on protecting persons who engage in public participation from manifestly unfounded or abusive court proceedings (“Strategic lawsuits against public participation”) {SWD(2022) 117 final}  
 
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

1. 

• 

CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 

Reasons for and objectives of the proposal 

Manifestly  unfounded  or  abusive  court  proceedings  against  public  participation  (commonly 
referred  to  also  as  strategic  lawsuits  against  public  participation  or  ‘SLAPPs’)  are  a  recent 
but  increasingly  prevalent  phenomenon  in  the  European  Union.  They  are  a  particularly 
harmful  form  of  harassment  and  intimidation  used  against  those  involved  in  protecting  the 
public  interest.  They  are  groundless  or  exaggerated  court  proceedings  typically  initiated  by 
powerful individuals, lobby groups, corporations and state organs against parties who express 
criticism  or  communicate  messages  that  are  uncomfortable  to  the  claimants,  on  a  matter  of 
public  interest.  Their  purpose  is  to  censor,  intimidate  and  silence  critics  by  burdening  them 
with  the  cost  of  a  legal  defence  until  they  abandon  their  criticism  or  opposition.  Unlike 
regular proceedings, SLAPPs are not initiated with a view to exercising the right of access to 
justice and the purpose of winning the legal proceedings, or obtaining redress.  Instead, they 
are initiated to intimidate the defendants and to drain their resources. The ultimate goal is to 
achieve a chilling effect, silence the defendants and deter them from pursuing their work. 

Typical targets of SLAPPs are journalists and human rights defenders. This extends beyond 
individual  persons  to  media  and  publishing  houses  and  civil  society  organisations,  such  as 
those involved in environmental activism. Other persons engaged in public participation such 
as researchers and academics may also be targeted.  

A  healthy  and  thriving  democracy  requires  that  citizens  are  able  to  participate  actively  in 
public debate without undue interference by public authorities or other powerful interests. In 
order to secure meaningful participation, citizens must be able to access reliable information, 
which enables them to form their own opinions and exercise their own judgement in a public 
space in which different views can be expressed freely. 

Journalists  have  an  essential  role  in  facilitating  public  debate  and  in  imparting  information, 
opinions and ideas. They need to be able to conduct their activities effectively to ensure that 
citizens have access to a plurality of views in European democracies. Investigative journalists 
play a key role in combating organised crime, corruption and extremism. A robust system of 
safeguards  is  needed  to  enable  them  to  fulfil  their  crucial  role  as  watchdogs  on  matters  of 
legitimate public interest. Their work carries particularly high risks and they are experiencing 
a growing number of attacks and harassment. Human rights defenders have a critical role to 
play  in  upholding  fundamental  rights,  democratic  values,  social  inclusion,  environmental 
protection and the rule of law. They should be able to participate actively in public life and 
make  their  voice  heard  on  policy  matters  and  in  decision-making  processes  without  fear  of 
intimidation. 

Imbalance of power between the parties with  the claimant having a more powerful  position 
than  the  defendant  -  for  example  financially  or  politically  -  is  often  a  characteristic  of 
SLAPPs.  While  it  is  not  always  the  case,  where  present  such  an  imbalance  of  power 
contributes significantly to the potential of SLAPPs to produce harmful consequences for the 
targets, with chilling effects for public debate as a result. SLAPPs can have a deterrent effect 
also  on  other  potential  targets,  who  may  decide  not  to  assert  their  right  to  investigate  and 
report on issues of public interest. This risks leading to self-censorship. 

SLAPPs  constitute  an  abuse  of  court  proceedings  and  put  unnecessary  burdens  on  courts. 
SLAPP-initiating  entities  and  individuals  can  base  their  claims  on  various  grounds.  The 
allegations often relate to defamation, but they also relate to breaches of other rules or rights 

EN 

1 

  EN 

(e.g. data protection or privacy laws). These are often combined with damages/tort claims or 
at times injunctions (prohibiting or at least delaying publication). 

The  prevalence  of  SLAPPs  has  been  identified  as  a  matter  of  serious  concern  in  some 
Member States in the context of the 2020 and 2021 Rule of Law Reports 

The  Council  of  Europe’s  Platform  to  Promote  the  Protection  of  Journalism  and  Safety  of 
Journalists1  also  reports  an  increasing  number  of  alerts  of  serious  threats  to  the  safety  of 
journalists  and  media  freedom  in  Europe,  including  multiple  cases  of  judicial  intimidation. 
The  2021  annual  Report  of  the  partner  associations  to  the  Council  of  Europe  Platform  to 
Promote the Protection of Journalism and Safety of Journalists underlines the notable increase 
of SLAPP-related alerts reported in 2020 over the previous year, both in numbers of alerts and 
jurisdictions  of  Council  of  Europe  member  states  concerned2.  More  broadly,  information 
collected on the European Media Pluralism Monitor3 also shows a deterioration in journalists’ 
working conditions. In 2021, the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) documented 439 
alerts (with 778 persons or entities related to media being attacked) in 24 EU Member States 
in 12 months, including SLAPPs.4 

While  more  data  is  available  on  threats  of  SLAPPs  against  journalists  and  human  rights 
defenders,  other  actors  engaged  in  public  participation,  such  as  trade  union  activists  and 
academics,  are  facing  similar  problems.  This  was  signalled  in  a  number  of  civil  society 
contributions received in the open public consultation.  

Many  SLAPPs  occur  in  domestic  context  and  do  not  have  cross-border  implications. 
However,  SLAPPs  often  have  a  cross-border  nature  and  where  cross-border  implications 
exist, they add an extra layer of complexity and costs, with even more adverse consequences 
for defendants. The fact that online media content is accessible across jurisdictions may open 
the way for forum shopping and hamper effective access to justice and judicial cooperation. 
Defendants  may  face  multiple  court  proceedings  at  the  same  time  and  in  different 
jurisdictions. The phenomenon of forum shopping (or libel tourism) is a factor amplifying the 
problem  and  some  jurisdictions  are  perceived  as  more  claimant-friendly.  The  effect  is  even 
stronger when SLAPPs are launched outside the European Union. 

Objective of the proposal 

1 

2 

3 
4 

Since 2015, the Platform of the Council of Europe has facilitated the compilation and dissemination of 
information  on  serious  concerns  about  media  freedom  and  safety  of  journalists  in  Council  of  Europe 
member  states.  Contributing  Partner  organisations  –  invited  international  NGOs  and  associations  of 
journalists  –  issue  alerts  on  media  freedom  violations  and  publish  annual  reports  on  the  situation  of 
media freedom and safety of journalists in Europe. The Council of Europe member states are expected 
to act and address the issues and inform the Platform on the actions taken in response to the alerts. The 
low response rate of Council of Europe member states, which include EU Member States, shows a need 
for further action. https://www.coe.int/en/web/media-freedom. 
In 2021, 282 alerts were published on the Platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of 
journalists (coe.int), amongst these, several concerned cases of judicial intimidation, i.e. opportunistic, 
arbitrary  or  vexatious  use  of  legislation,  including  defamation,  anti-terrorism,  national  security, 
hooliganism  or  anti-extremism  laws.  The  2021  Annual  Report  by  the  partner  organisations  to  the 
Council of Europe Platform to Promote the Protection of Journalism and Safety of Journalists noted an 
increase  in  2020  over  the  previous  year,  both  in  numbers  of  alerts  and  jurisdictions  of  Council  of 
Europe member states concerned - 1680a2440e (coe.int). 
https://cmpf.eui.eu/media-pluralism-monitor  
https://www.ecpmf.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/MFRR-Monitoring-Report.pdf. A separate factsheet 
provides 
https://www.mfrr.eu/wp-
content/uploads/2022/02/2022_02_17_MFRR_FACT_SHEET_MAPPING_MEDIA_FREEDOM_Euro
pean_Union_Member_States_Year_2021.pdf.  

EU  Member 

concerning 

States. 

data 

the 

27 

EN 

2 

  EN 

                                                 
This  proposal  is  one  of  the  actions  under  the  European  Democracy  Action  Plan  that  aim  to 
strengthen  media  pluralism  and  media  freedom  in  the  European  Union.  The  initiative 
encompasses also human rights defenders, who play a key role in our democracies and who 
are also increasingly vulnerable to such abusive forms of harassment.  

The  proposal  aims  to  protect  targets  of  SLAPPs  and  prevent  the  phenomenon  from  further 
expanding  in  the  EU.  Currently,  none  of  the  Member  States  has  specific  safeguards  against 
such  proceedings  and  only  a  few  are  currently  considering  the  introduction  of  specific 
safeguards. There are also no EU-wide rules that address SLAPPs. By developing a common 
EU understanding on what constitutes a SLAPP and by introducing procedural safeguards, the 
proposal  aims  to  provide courts  with  effective means to  deal  with  SLAPPs  and targets  with 
the means to defend themselves.  

The  proposed  procedural  safeguards  apply  in  cases  with  cross-border  implications.  As 
underlined  above,  a  cross-border  dimension  of  SLAPP  cases  adds  to  the  complexity  and 
challenges  faced  by  defendants.  Protecting  EU  citizens  and  civil  society  from  SLAPPs 
initiated in third countries is another goal of the proposal.  

Commission Recommendation protecting journalists and human rights defenders who engage 
in  public  participation  from  manifestly  unfounded  or  abusive  court  proceedings  (“Strategic 
lawsuits against public participation”) 

This proposal for a Directive and the Commission recommendation on protecting journalists 
and human rights defenders who engage in public participation from manifestly unfounded or 
abusive court proceedings (“Strategic lawsuits against public participation”)5, adopted at the 
same time, are complementary and fully consistent.  

The Recommendation invites Member States to review their national situation to ensure that 
their applicable legal frameworks provide for the necessary safeguards to address SLAPPs in 
full  respect  of  fundamental  rights,  including  the  right  to  freedom  of  expression,  the  right  to 
access  to  justice  and  the  right  to  the  protection  of  personal  data  and  democratic  values. 
Member  States  are  also  encouraged  to  include  in  their  national  laws  similar  safeguards  for 
domestic  cases  as  those  included  in  Union  instruments  that  seek  to  address  manifestly 
unfounded or abusive cases for civil  matters with  cross-border  implications. Member States 
are recommended, inter alia, to abolish prison sentences for defamation cases, and favour the 
use of administrative or civil law rather than that of the criminal law to deal with such cases, 
provided  that  the  relevant  provisions  have  a  less  punitive  effect  and  that  the  administrative 
rules exclude any form of detention. 

The  Recommendation  also  covers  aspects  related  to  the  training  of  legal  professionals  and 
potential  targets  to  improve  their  knowledge  and  skills  to  effectively  deal  with  SLAPPs, 
awareness  raising  in  particular  aimed  at  enabling  journalists  and  human  rights  defenders  to 
recognize when they are facing a SLAPP, support to targets of SLAPPs (e.g. financial or legal 
assistance) and a more systematic monitoring and data collection.  

• 

Consistency with other Union policies 

European Democracy Action Plan 

5 

C(2022)2428, 27.4.2022 

EN 

3 

  EN 

 
                                                 
On  3  December  2020,  the  Commission  issued  a  European  Democracy  Action  Plan,6  which 
announced a set of measures to strengthen media freedom and media pluralism, including the 
SLAPP  initiative and a recommendation on the safety of journalists referred to  below. That 
Action  Plan  is  the  umbrella-initiative  aimed  to  empower  citizens  and  build  more  resilient 
democracies across the EU.  

Recommendation  on  ensuring  the  protection,  safety  and  empowerment  of  journalists  and 
other media professionals in the European Union 

As  highlighted  in  the  European  Democracy  Action  Plan,  SLAPPs  are  often  used  in 
combination  with  threats  to  the  physical  safety  of  journalists.  On  16  September  2021,  the 
Commission adopted a Recommendation on ensuring the protection, safety and empowerment 
of journalists and other media professionals in the European Union.7 

That  Recommendation  aims  to  ensure  safer  working  conditions  for  all  media  professionals, 
free from fear and intimidation,  whether online or offline.  It  lays  down  actions for Member 
States to improve the safety of journalists. It also calls for the creation of independent national 
support  services,  including  helplines,  legal  advice,  psychological  support  and  shelters  for 
journalists and media professionals facing threats. It also calls for an increased protection of 
journalists  during  demonstrations,  greater  online  safety  and  particular  support  to  female 
journalists.  

Strategy to strengthen the application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European 
Union (“Charter”) 

This proposal complements and is fully in line with the Strategy to strengthen the application 
of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU8, adopted on 2 December 2020. This Strategy 
recognises that civil society organisations and human rights defenders are vital for a healthy 
democracy and a society where people can enjoy their fundamental rights. Therefore, it  sets 
out  actions  to,  inter  alia,  support  and  protect  civil  society  organisations  and  human  rights 
defenders.  In  particular,  the  Strategy  recognises  that  those  actors  are  facing  challenges  in 
some  Member  States,  which  include  smear  campaigns,  physical  and  verbal  attacks, 
intimidation and harassment including via SLAPPs. 

In  the  Strategy,  the  Commission  invited  Member  States  to  promote  a  supportive  and  safe 
environment  to  civil  society  organisations  and  human  rights  defenders  in  their  country, 
including at local level. 

The present proposal creates one more building block to strengthen fundamental rights in the 
European Union and supports one of the objectives of the Strategy.  

Rule of Law Reports 
The Commission’s 20209 and 202110 Rule of Law Reports provide evidence on the emergence 
of SLAPPs in the European Union. The reports underline that in a number of Member States, 

6 
7 
8 
9 

10 

COM(2020) 790 final, 3.12.2020 
C(2021)6650 final of 16 September 2021. 
COM(2020) 711 final, 2.12.2020 
COM/2020/580 final - Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, 
the  European  economic  and  social  Committee  and  Committee  of  Regions  2020  Rule  of  law  report  – 
The 
-  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
in 
content/EN/TXT/?qid=1602583951529&uri=CELEX%3A52020DC0580  
COM/2021/700/final  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council, 
the  European  economic  and  social  Committee  and  Committee  of  Regions  2021  Rule  of  law  report  – 

the  European  Union. 

rule  of 

situation 

law 

EN 

4 

  EN 

                                                 
 
 
journalists and human rights defenders increasingly face threats and attacks, both physical and 
online,  in  relation  to  their  publications  and  their  work,  in  various  forms  including  the 
deployment of SLAPPs.  

Whistleblower Protection Directive  

This proposal does not affect the protection already provided by Directive on the protection of 
persons  who  report  breaches  of  Union  law11  and  is  fully  consistent  with  it.  The  effective 
protection of whistleblowers against retaliation is  essential for defending the public interest, 
and  also  for  safeguarding  the  watchdog  role  of  media  in  democratic  societies,  as 
whistleblowers  are  often  an  important  source  for  investigative  journalism.  Directive 
2019/1937 provides robust protection to persons reporting information on breaches of Union 
law  against  any  form  of  retaliation,  both  within  and  outside  the  work-related  context, 
including  retaliation  through  proceedings  such  as  related  to  defamation,  breach  of 
confidentiality and personal data protection. In situations falling within the scope of both this 
proposal and of Directive 2019/1937, the protection offered by both acts should apply. 

EU Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy 2020-2024 
The  Action  Plan12  contributes  to  the  safety  and  protection  of  journalists  and  media  workers 
around  the  world,  including  by  working  on  an  enabling  environment  for  freedom  of 
expression and by condemning attacks and  other forms of harassment and intimidation both 
online and offline. It addresses specific threats faced by women journalists, ensures that those 
harassed,  intimidated  or  threatened  receive  assistance  via  the  EU  human  rights  defenders 
protection mechanisms and supports media initiatives. It appeals to state authorities to prevent 
and condemn such violence and to take effective measures to end impunity. 

Protection of journalists and human rights defenders is at the core of the EU's external human 
rights and democracy action, in line with the Action Plan. This proposal is in synergy with the 
strong  efforts  led  by  the  EU  around  the  world  in  this  regard  and  will  provide  additional 
impetus for further targeted support to human rights defenders and journalists facing SLAPPs.  

EU Human Rights Guidelines on Freedom of Expression online and offline  
The guidelines13 specify that the EU will work against arbitrary attacks, indiscriminate abuse 
of  criminal  and  civil  proceedings,  defamation  campaigns  and  excessive  restrictions  on 
journalists,  media  actors,  NGOs  and  social  media  personalities  launched  with  the  aim  of 
preventing these associations and individuals from freely exercising their right to freedom of 
expression. 

The Aarhus Convention 

The Union and its Member States are Parties to the United Nations Economic Commission for 
Europe  (UNECE)  Convention  on  Access  to  Information,  Public  Participation  in  Decision-

11 

12 

13 

EN 

in 

of 

law 

rule 

situation 

the  European  Union. 

The 
content/EN/TXT/?qid=1634551652872&uri=CELEX%3A52021DC0700  
Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and  of the Council of 23 October 2019 on the 
protection of persons who report breaches of Union law, OJ L 305, 26.11.2019, p. 17-56. 
Joint Communication to the European Parliament and the Council EU Action Plan on Human Rightsand 
Democracy 2020-2024, JOIN/2020/5 final.  
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/28348/142549.pdf 

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

5 

  EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                         
making  and  Access  to  Justice  in  Environmental  Matters  (‘the  Aarhus  Convention’)14  each 
with its own as well as shared responsibilities and obligations under that Convention. Article 
3(8)  of  this  Convention  requires  each  Party  to  ensure  that  persons  exercising  their  rights  in 
conformity  with  the  provisions  of  the  Convention  should  not  be  penalized,  persecuted  or 
harassed in  any way for  their involvement. The inclusion of environmental defenders in  the 
scope  of  this  proposal  contributes  to  the  implementation  of  this  international  obligation 
undertaken by the Union.  

Communication on Combating Environmental Crime 

In its Communication adopted on 15 December 2021, the Commission has committed that a 
proposal  for  legislation  against  abusive  litigation  targeting  journalists  and  rights  defenders 
will include environmental defenders.15   

2. 

• 

LEGAL BASIS, SUBSIDIARITY AND PROPORTIONALITY 

Legal basis 

The  legal  basis  for  this  proposal  is  Article 81(2)  of  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the 
European  Union  (TFEU),  which  is  the  regular  legal  basis  for  judicial  cooperation  in  civil 
matters having cross-border implications. More specifically, the legal basis is Article 81(2)(f) 
TFEU, which empowers the European Parliament and the Council to adopt measures aimed at 
ensuring  “the  elimination  of  obstacles  to  the  proper  functioning  of  civil  proceedings,  if 
necessary  by  promoting  the  compatibility  of  the  rules  of  civil  procedure  applicable  in  the 
Member  States”.  Since  SLAPPs  constitute  an  obstacle  to  the  proper  functioning  of  civil 
proceedings, the Union is competent  to  legislate  on that basis in  civil  matters having cross-
border implications. SLAPPs are an abuse of civil proceedings because their aim is not access 
to  justice  but  harassment  and  silencing  of  defendants.  At  the  same  time,  long  proceedings 
create additional burdens to national court systems.  

The rules concerning third country judgments in Chapter V are also based on Article 81(2)(f) 
since they are incidental to the main purpose of this proposal. They ensure the effectiveness of 
the  rules  of  this  proposal  against  manifestly  unfounded  or  abusive  court  proceedings  on 
account of public participation by preventing that such cases are brought before the courts of 
third countries. 

• 

Subsidiarity (for non-exclusive competence)  

SLAPPs  are  emerging  in  many  Member  States  and  becoming  an  EU-wide  problem.  At  the 
same  time,  none  of  the  Member  States  currently  provides  for  specific  safeguards  against 
SLAPPs.16 While, depending on national law, some existing general safeguards may be used 
against SLAPPs, such  general safeguards substantially  vary across Member States  and their 
effectiveness to address SLAPPs is limited. Furthermore, the existing divergences in national 
procedural laws risk increasing forum shopping and multiple court proceedings being initiated 
in different EU jurisdictions. Evidence shows that national civil procedural law is not always 

14 

15  

16 

Council  Decision  2005/370/EC  of  17  February  2005  on  the  conclusion,  on  behalf  of  the  European 
Community,  of  the  Convention  on  access  to  information,  public  participation  in  decision-making  and 
access to justice in environmental matters (OJ L 124, 17.5.2005, p. 1). 
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on stepping up the 
fight against environmental crime, COM(2021) 814 final, 15.12.2021. 
IE,  LT  and  MT  have  proposed  legislation  or  are  contemplating  to  propose  legislation  to  address  this 
problem.  

EN 

6 

  EN 

                                                 
well  equipped  to  deal  with  the  additional  complications  arising  out  of  the  cross-border 
proceedings.17 The divergences in national laws also make it highly unlikely that the Member 
States  acting  individually  would  successfully  tackle  the  phenomenon  or  be  able  to  ensure 
overall coherence of such rules across Member States to ensure an equally high standard of 
protection across the Union.  

To tackle these risks and to avoid burdening national courts with multiple and lengthy abusive 
court proceedings, it appears necessary to set minimum standards and ensure compatibility of 
the rules of civil  procedure applicable in  the Member States against SLAPPs. Action at  EU 
level helps to combat the emergence and growth of SLAPPs throughout the EU in a consistent 
manner and ensure convergence in Member States’ approaches to the phenomenon.18  

EU  action  would  add  value  also  by  providing  safeguards  to  tackle  SLAPPs  from  third 
countries  in  an  effective  way.  Joint  action  from  the  Member  States  is  needed  also  to  fight 
against SLAPPs  from  third countries  because otherwise  claimants  may  seek to  benefit from 
divergence of systems between Member States and seek the recognition and enforcement of 
third-country SLAPP judgments where it can be most easily obtained. 

The proposal respects the principle of subsidiarity by proposing only targeted safeguards and 
limiting  the  legislative  action  to  what  is  strictly  necessary  to  achieve  what  Member  States 
cannot achieve by acting alone.  

• 

Proportionality 

Action at EU-level should be targeted and limited to what is necessary to ensure consistency 
in  approach  in  the  Member  States  in  relation  to  cross-border  situations.  The  proposal  is 
designed to respect the principle of proportionality. This is the reason for proposing only well-
targeted procedural safeguards. These are designed to provide only what is necessary in order 
to ensure a better functioning of cross-border civil procedures in case of SLAPPs, which form 
a serious threat to European democracy and rule of law.  

Proportionality  is  also  illustrated  by  the  fact  that  many  of  the  elements  aimed  to  tackle 
SLAPPs  will  be  provided  as  non-legislative  measures  in  a  recommendation  and  not  by 
legislative action.  

• 

Choice of the instrument 

The  selected  legislative  instrument  is  a  directive,  which  will  provide  for  binding  and 
consistent procedural safeguards in the Member States. This will prevent existing divergences 
in  safeguards  between  Member  States,  which  risk  leading  to  forum  shopping  across  the 
borders. At the same time, the choice of  a directive will allow the Member States to  fit the 
specific  procedural  safeguards  to  their  national  civil  and  procedural  law,  which  still  vary 
considerably between Member States.  

The directive will be complemented by a non-legislative instrument (a recommendation). This 
provides an efficient combination of legislative and non-legislative action. 

17 

18 

European Commission, Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers, Gascón Inchausti, M., Hess, B., 
Cuniberti,  G.,  et  al., An  evaluation  study  of  national  procedural  laws  and  practices  in  terms  of  their 
impact on the free circulation of judgments and on the equivalence and effectiveness of the procedural 
protection  of  consumers  under  EU  consumer  law  :  strand  1  :  mutual  trust  and  free  circulation  of 
judgments, Publications Office, 2017, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2838/38491, p.31. 
Several Member States (IE, LT and MT) are currently assessing the need of protection against SLAPPs.  

EN 

7 

  EN 

                                                 
3. 

• 

RESULTS 
CONSULTATIONS AND IMPACT ASSESSMENTS 

EX-POST 

EVALUATIONS, 

OF 

STAKEHOLDER 

Stakeholder consultations 

In the stakeholder consultations, input and comments were received from a wide range of key 
stakeholders  representing  EU  and  non-EU  citizens,  national  authorities,  legal  professionals 
such as judges, academics, research institutions, NGOs and other relevant interest groups.  

The  consultations  involved  an  exploratory  technical  focus  group  discussion  in  March  2021 
with  a selected number  of participants that included four targets  of SLAPPs, who agreed to 
share  their  personal  experience,  provided  useful  insights  on  SLAPPs  and  helped  in  the 
preparatory phase.  
An  open  public  consultation19  collected  from  4  October  2021  to  10  January  2022  views  of 
citizens, journalists, Member States, NGOs, civil society, judges, legal professionals and other 
stakeholders on SLAPPs and what action should be taken to tackle them in the EU.  
A targeted consultation of national judges from 12 November 2021 to 10 January 202220 via 
the  European  Judicial  Network  in  civil  and  commercial  matters  sought  more  detailed 
feedback  on  identification  of  SLAPPs,  potential  procedural  shortcomings,  already  existing 
(albeit non-SLAPP specific) national remedies, awareness of judges on SLAPPs and judges’ 
training needs.  

A  technical  meeting  with  Member  States  experts  in  October  2021  gathered  insights  on 
Member  States’  views  (including  from  Member  States’  independent  bodies  and  authorities) 
on whether and what type of EU-level action could be needed against SLAPPs, what judicial 
remedies  (if  any  and  general  or  specific)  and  what  kind  of  support  is  currently  available  at 
national level to targets of SLAPPs. 

A workshop with selected stakeholders in November 2021 provided a forum for discussion on 
the dimension of SLAPPs, collecting information, discussing and testing possible solutions.  

The Commission’s preparatory work took into account the evidence gathered by the European 
Parliament during the preparation of its own-initiative report on the matter adopted at the end 
of 2021. 

The feedback from  the stakeholders, in  particular in  the open public consultation  and in the 
stakeholder  meeting  showed  strong  support  for  EU-wide  action  against  SLAPPs,  both 
legislative  and non-legislative. The  EU-wide organisations reported that  SLAPPs are on the 
rise in the EU, including cross-border cases. The opinions expressed in the public consultation 
also  stressed  the  importance  of  training  and  awareness  raising  on  SLAPPs,  the  benefits  of 
collecting data and need of proper monitoring of SLAPPs. 

Feedback  from  the  public  consultation  and  stakeholder  meeting  also  provided  important 
evidence  on  the  phenomenon  in  the  EU,  which  was  taken  on  board  in  the  Staff  Working 
Document21 accompanying this proposal.  

Most  Member  States  signalled  support  for  EU  action  against  SLAPPs,  flagging  the  need  to 
protect  freedom  of  expression  and  information  and  media  freedom,  while  preserving  the 
balance between protective anti-SLAPP measures and access to justice. Some Member States 

19 

20 
21 

https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13192-EU-action-against-
abusive-litigation-SLAPP-targeting-journalists-and-rights-defenders/public-consultation_en 
https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/runner/EJN_SLAPP 
SWD(2022)117, 27.4.2022.  

EN 

8 

  EN 

                                                 
pointed to a lack of evidence of SLAPP cases, in particular with a cross-border dimension, as 
a phenomenon of concern in their country. 

The  targeted  consultation  of  national  judges  revealed  that  there  is  no  legal  definition  of  a 
SLAPP or SLAPP-specific system of safeguards in the Member State of respondents although 
some of the existing national general safeguards can in principle be used in SLAPP-cases.  

The  European  Parliament  adopted  an  own-initiative  report  on  SLAPPs  on  11  November 
202122 calling upon the Commission to present a comprehensive package of measures against 
SLAPPs, including legislation.  

The Commission has also commissioned studies in order to develop a better understanding of 
the  phenomenon  in  the  EU  and  a  first  mapping  of  the  situation  in  the  Member  States.  This 
first mapping provided insights on SLAPPs and their drivers.23 The second study was a more 
in-depth comparative study assessing in detail the current state of play in the Member States.24 

Collection and use of expertise 

• 
To prepare the SLAPP initiative the Commission set up an Expert Group25 in 2021. The group 
comprised  of  academics,  legal  professionals  and  representatives  of  media  and  civil  society. 
The group’s mandate was to provide legal expertise on SLAPPs, act as a platform at EU level 
to  exchange best  practices and knowledge and,  where possible,  assist  targets of SLAPPs. A 
specific legislative sub-group within the expert group was created in autumn 2021 to assist the 
Commission in the preparation of the legislative proposal.  

Staff Working Document 

• 
This proposal is accompanied by a Staff Working Document26, which presents the rationale, 
analysis  and  evidence  available  to  underpin  the  proposal.  There  is  no  Impact  Assessment 
accompanying the proposal, as this proposal will provide targeted procedural safeguards and 
will not generate significant quantifiable costs. In contrast, it will provide national courts with 
more adapted means to stop attempts to misuse judicial procedures and avoid the related costs 
that  such  misuse  can  cause  to  the  judicial  system.  Moreover,  as  SLAPPs  endanger 
fundamental  rights  of  freedom  of  expression  and  freedom  of  information,  it  is  of  crucial 
importance  to  take  strong  and  swift  action  to  prevent  that  this  harmful  phenomenon,  which 
has emerged relatively recently but is increasingly present, expands further in the EU.  

• 

Fundamental rights 

The  proposal  promotes  the  protection  of  fundamental  rights  in  the  European  Union. 
Journalists,  human  rights  defenders  and  other  target  groups  benefiting  from  the  proposed 
procedural  safeguards  play  an  important  role  in  European  democracies,  especially  in 
inclusion, 
upholding  public  debate, 

rights,  democratic  values,  social 

fundamental 

22 

23 

24 

25 
26 

European  Parliament  resolution  of  11  November  2021  on  strengthening  the  democracy  and  media 
freedom  and  pluralism  in  the  EU:  the  undue  use  of  actions  under  civil  and  criminal  law  to  silence 
journalists, NGOs and civil society (2021/2036(INI)) 
Available  at  https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/ad-hoc-literature-review-analysis-key-elements-
slapp_en.pdf 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/files/strategic-lawsuits-against-public-participation-slapp-european-union-
comparative-study_en 
Expert group against SLAPP. 
SWD(2022)117, 27.4.2022. 

EN 

9 

  EN 

                                                 
environmental protection and the rule of law. At the same time,  procedural  law plays a key 
role in guaranteeing the effectiveness of fundamental rights in accordance with the Charter.  

The right to freedom of expression and information as set forth in  Article 11 of the Charter 
includes  the right  to  hold opinions and to  receive and impart information and ideas  without 
interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. While it is not an absolute right, 
any limitations thereto must be provided for by law, respect the essence of such right and be 
enacted  only  if  they  are  necessary  and  genuinely  meet  objectives  of  general  interest 
recognised by the Union or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others (Article 52(1) 
of the Charter).  

At the same time, the proposal ensures the balance of access to justice as guaranteed in Article 
47 of the Charter and personality/privacy rights under Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter with the 
protection of freedom of expression and information. The procedural safeguards are carefully 
targeted and leave the court sufficient discretion in individual cases to maintain the delicate 
balance  between  speedy  dismissal  of  manifestly  unfounded  claims  and  effective  access  to 
justice. 

4. 

BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS 

This proposal will not have implications for the budget of the European Union.  

5. 

• 

OTHER ELEMENTS 

Implementation plans and monitoring, evaluation and reporting arrangements 

The  implementation  of  the  Directive  in  the  Member  States  shall  be  facilitated  by  the 
Commission  providing  transposition  assistance  to  ensure  a  smooth  implementation  in  the 
Member  States,  organising  at  least  one  transposition  workshop  and  organising  bilateral 
meetings  including  on  demand  by  Member  States.  Member  States  will  also  be  invited  to 
notify their national transposition measures. 

The operation of the Directive shall be reviewed 5 years after its entry into application. 

• 

Explanatory documents (for directives) 

This proposal does not require specific explanatory documents. 

Detailed explanation of the specific provisions of the proposal 

The  Directive  consists  of  four  distinct  main  parts:  common  rules  on  procedural  safeguards 
(Chapter  II),  early  dismissal  of  manifestly  unfounded  court  proceedings  (Chapter  III), 
remedies against abusive court proceedings (Chapter IV) and protection against third-country 
judgements  (Chapter  V).  The  provisions  contained  in  Chapter  I  and  VI  are  horizontal  in 
scope. 

Chapter  I  General  provisions:  this  chapter  contains  provisions  on  the  subject  matter  and 
scope of the instrument, some definitions and a provision about when a matter is considered 
to have cross-border implication for the purpose of the Directive.  

Article 1 indicates the subject matter, clarifying that the specific safeguards provided by the 
Directive  are  meant  to  address  manifestly  unfounded  or  abusive  court  proceedings  in  civil 
matters  with  cross-border  implications  brought  against  both  natural  and  legal  persons  on 

EN 

10 

  EN 

account of their engagement in public participation, in particular journalists and human rights 
defenders. 

Article  2  defines  the  material  scope  of  the  Directive,  which  applies  to  matters  of  a  civil  or 
commercial  nature  with  cross-border  implications,  whatever  the  nature  of  the  court  or 
tribunal.  This  includes  civil  claims  brought  in  criminal  proceedings  but  also  interim  and 
precautionary  measures,  counteractions  or  other  particular  type  of  remedies  available  under 
other  instruments.  As  in  other  civil  and  commercial  EU  instruments,  revenue,  customs, 
administrative  matters  or  the  liability  of  the  State  for  acts  and  omissions  in  the  exercise  of 
State authority are excluded from the scope. The notion of acta iure imperii includes claims 
against  officials  who  act  on  behalf  of  the  State  and  liability  for  acts  of  public  authorities, 
including liability of publicly appointed office-holders. Public authorities should therefore not 
be considered to be targets of SLAPP. 

Article 3 provides the definition of public participation, matter of public interest and abusive 
court proceedings against public participation. 

Public  participation  is  broadly  defined  meaning  any  statement  or  activity  expressed  or 
carried out in: 

1) 

2) 

the  exercise  of  the  right  to  freedom  of  expression  and  information,  such  as  the 
creation,  exhibition,  advertisement  or  other  promotion  of  journalistic,  political, 
scientific,  academic,  artistic,  commentary  or  satirical  communications,  publications 
or works, and preparatory, supporting or assisting action directly linked thereto;  

the exercise of the right to freedom of association and peaceful assembly, such as the 
organisation of or participation to lobbying activities, demonstrations and protests or 
activities resulting from the exercise of the right to good administration and the right 
to  an  effective  remedy,  such  as  the  filing  of  complaints,  petitions  or  administrative 
and  judicial  claims  and  participation  in  public  hearings,  as  well  as  preparatory, 
supporting or assisting action directly linked thereto.  

In addition, it covers other activities meant to inform or influence public opinion or to further 
action by the public, including activities by any private or public entity in relation to an issue 
of public interest, such as the organisation of or participation to research, surveys, campaigns 
or any other collective actions, and preparatory, supporting or assisting action directly linked 
thereto. Preparatory actions are, for example, interviews made by an investigative journalist or 
an academic to  prepare  a statement, or information  collected by an environmental  defender. 
Supporting  and  assisting  actions  should  be  covered  because  claimants  can  bring  court 
proceedings  also  against  actors  providing  necessary  supporting  or  assisting  services  such  as 
internet connection or printing services with the objective to indirectly restrain the freedom of 
expression  of  the  actual  SLAPP  target.  Such  preparatory,  supporting  and  assisting  actions 
need to have a direct and inherent link to the statement or activity in question.  

On the other hand, public participation should normally not cover commercial advertisement 
and marketing activity (commercial speech).  

Matter of public interest is also defined broadly, with reference to any matter which affects 
the public to such an extent that the public may legitimately take an interest in it, in areas such 
as, for example, public health, safety, the environment, climate, or enjoyment of fundamental 
rights.  

The  definition  of  abusive  court  proceedings  against  public  participation  refers  to  court 
proceedings,  brought  in  relation  to  public  participation  that  are  either  fully  or  partially 
unfounded and have as their main purpose to prevent, restrict or penalize public participation.  

EN 

11 

  EN 

list 

indicates 

A  non-exhaustive 
indicators  of  abuse,  such  as  
the  most  common 
the  disproportionate,  excessive  or  unreasonable  nature  of  the  claim  or  part  thereof,  the 
existence of multiple proceedings initiated by the claimant or associated parties in relation to 
similar matters or intimidation, harassment or threats on the part of the claimant or his or her 
representatives.  

Abusive court proceedings often involve litigation tactics used in bad faith such as delaying 
proceedings,  causing  disproportionate  costs  to  the  defendant  in  the  proceedings  or  forum 
shopping.  These  tactics,  which  are  used  by  the  claimant  for  other  purposes  than  gaining 
access to justice, are often, although not always, combined with various forms of intimidation, 
harassment  or  threats  before  or  during  proceedings,  for  the  purpose  of  hindering  public 
participation. 

Article 4 specifies when a matter is considered to have cross-border implications.  

For  the  purpose  of  this  Directive,  a  matter  is  considered  to  have  cross-border  implications 
unless  both  parties  are  domiciled  in  the  same  Member  State  as  the  court  seized,  which 
indicates that the matter is assumed to be purely domestic.  

However, even where both parties to the proceedings are domiciled in the same Member State 
as  the  court  seized,  the  matter  shall  be  considered  to  have  cross-border  implications  in  two 
other types of situations.  

1) 

2) 

The  first  situation  is  where  the  specific  act  of  public  participation  concerning  a 
matter  of  public  interest  at  stake  is  relevant  to  more  than  one  Member  State.  That 
includes  for instance public participation  in  events  organised by Union  institutions, 
such as appearances in public hearings, or statements or activities on matters that are 
of specific relevance to more than one Member State, such as cross-border pollution 
or allegations of money laundering with potential cross-border involvement.  

The  second  situation  where  a  matter  should  be  considered  to  have  cross-border 
implications is when the claimant or associated entities have initiated concurrent or 
previous  court  proceedings  against  the  same  or  associated  defendants  in  another 
Member State.  

3) 

These two types of situations take into consideration the specific context of SLAPPs. 

Chapter  II  Common  rules  on  procedural  safeguards:  This  Chapter  contains  horizontal 
provisions  on  the  application  for  procedural  safeguards,  its  content  and  other  procedural 
features. 

Under Article 5, an application can be filed for different types of procedural safeguards: 

a) 

b) 

c) 

a security in accordance with Article 8; 

an  early  dismissal  of  manifestly  unfounded  court  proceedings  in  accordance  with 
Chapter III;  

remedies against abusive court proceedings in accordance with Chapter IV. 

While the description of the nature of the statement or activity as an act of public participation 
should  be  an  admissibility  requirement,  a  description  of  supporting  evidence  should  be 
considered appropriate, if no evidence has already been provided by the main claimant or is 
not otherwise available to the court. Member States may provide that the same measures can 
be taken by the court or tribunal seised of the matter ex officio at any stage of the proceedings. 

Article  6  deals  with  subsequent  amendments  to  claim  or  pleadings  by  claimants  who 
deliberately withdraw or amend claims or pleadings to avoid awarding costs to the successful 

EN 

12 

  EN 

party.  This  legal  strategy  may  deprive  the  court  of  the  power  to  acknowledge  the  abusive 
nature of the court proceedings, leaving the defendant with no opportunity to be reimbursed 
for procedural costs. The provision ensures that any subsequent amendments to the claims or 
the  pleadings  made  by  the  claimant,  including  the  discontinuation  of  proceedings,  do  not 
affect  the  possibility  for  the  court  or  tribunal  seised  of  the  matter  to  consider  the  court 
proceedings as abusive and grant award of costs, compensation of damages or penalties.  

Article  7  provides  that  a  court  or  tribunal  seised  in  the  matter  may  accept  that  non-
governmental  organisations  safeguarding  or  promoting  the  rights  of  persons  engaging  in 
public  participation  may  take  part  in  proceedings,  either  in  support  of  the  defendant  or  to 
provide  information.  Member  States  should  regulate  the  procedural  requirements  of 
intervention,  possibly  including  time  limits,  in  accordance  with  the  procedural  rules 
applicable to the court or tribunal seized of the matter.  

Article 8  introduces the  power for the court or tribunal to  require  the claimant to  provide a 
security  for procedural  costs or for procedural  costs and damages,  when the court considers 
that even if the claim is not manifestly unfounded, there are elements indicating an abuse of 
procedure and the prospects for success in the main proceedings are low. 

Chapter  III  Early  dismissal  of  manifestly  unfounded  court  proceedings:  This  Chapter 
deals  with  requirements  and  procedural  safeguards  to  grant  an  early  dismissal  in  court 
proceedings that are manifestly unfounded. 

Article 9 states that early dismissal is granted when the claim brought against the defendant 
is,  in  full  or  in  part,  manifestly  unfounded.  If  the  main  claim  is  dismissed  later  on  in  the 
ordinary proceeding, the defendant may still benefit from other remedies against abusive court 
proceedings, if elements of abuse are then recognised. 

Article 10 provides that if the defendant applied for early dismissal, the main proceedings are 
stayed until a final decision on that application is taken. A stay of the proceedings initiated by 
the  claimant  ensures  that  procedural  activity  is  suspended,  hence  reducing  the  procedural 
costs of the defendant. To avoid any impact on the effective access to justice, the stay should 
be  temporary  and  kept  only  until  a  final  decision  on  the  application,  which  is  no  longer 
subject to judicial review, is taken. 

Article  11  requires  that  an  application  for  early  dismissal  is  treated  in  an  accelerated 
procedure,  taking  into  account  the  circumstances  of  the  case  and  the  right  to  an  effective 
remedy and the right to a fair trial. To ensure high expediency in the accelerated procedure, 
Member  States  may  set  time  limits  for  the  holding  of  hearings  or  for  the  court  to  take  a 
decision.  They  may  as  well  adopt  schemes  akin  to  procedures  in  relation  to  provisional 
measures.  

Article  12  introduces  a  special  rule  on  the  burden  of  proof:  if  a  defendant  has  applied  for 
early dismissal showing that the statement or activity constitutes an act of public participation, 
it shall be for the claimant to prove that the claim is not manifestly unfounded. This does not 
represent  a  limitation  of  access  to  justice,  taking  into  account  that  the  claimant  carries  the 
burden of proof in relation to that claim and only needs to meet the much lower threshold of 
showing that the claim is not manifestly unfounded in order to avoid an early dismissal.  

Article 13 provides that a decision granting or refusing early dismissal should be subject to 
appeal. 

Chapter IV Remedies against abusive court proceedings: This Chapter contains provisions 
on award of costs, compensation of damages and penalties.  

EN 

13 

  EN 

Article 14 provides that a claimant who has brought abusive court proceedings against public 
participation can be ordered to bear all the costs of the proceedings, including the full costs of 
legal representation incurred by the defendant, unless such costs are excessive 

Article  15  ensures  that  any  natural  or  legal  person  who  has  suffered  harm  as  a  result  of 
abusive  court  proceedings  against  public  participation  is  able  to  claim  and  to  obtain  full 
compensation  for  that  harm.  This  covers  both  material  and  immaterial  damage.  Material 
damage  includes  for  example  lawyer  fees,  when  they  are  not  reimbursable  as  costs,  travel 
expenses  and  medical  costs  (for  example  for  psychological  assistance)  if  they  are  causally 
linked to the court proceedings. Pre-trial costs should be considered material damages, if they 
are  not  included  in  costs  according  to  national  laws.  Immaterial  damage  covers  different 
forms of physical and/or psychological harm. It includes, for example, pain and suffering or 
emotional  distress  related  to  the  court  proceedings,  impairment  of  life  or  of  relationship, 
reputational damage and in general, any types of intangible damage. 

Article  16  provides  for  the  possibility  to  impose  effective,  proportionate  and  dissuasive 
penalties on the party who brought abusive court proceedings against public participation. The 
main objective of this provision is to deter potential claimants from engaging in abusive court 
proceedings against public participation. Penalties will be paid to Member States. 

Chapter V Protection against third-country judgements: This Chapter contains remedies 
to protect the defendant against abusive court proceedings brought in third countries’ courts. 

Article 17 requires Member States to ensure that the recognition and enforcement of a third-
country judgment in court proceedings on account of public participation by natural or legal 
person domiciled in a Member State is refused as manifestly contrary to public policy (ordre 
public) if those proceedings would have been considered manifestly unfounded or abusive if 
they  had  been  brought  before  the  courts  of  the  Member  State  where  recognition  or 
enforcement is sought and those courts would have applied their own law.  

Article  18  provides,  as  additional  remedy  against  a  third-country  judgment,  that  where 
abusive court proceedings against public participationhave been brought against a natural or 
legal person domiciled in a Member State in a court or tribunal of a third country, that person 
can  seek  compensation  of  the  damages  and  the  costs  incurred  in  connection  with  the 
proceedings  before the  court or tribunal  of the third country,  irrespective  of the domicile of 
the  claimant  in  the  proceedings  in  the  third  country.  This  provision  creates  a  new  special 
ground  of  jurisdiction  in  order  to  ensure  that  targets  of  abusive  court  proceedings  who  are 
domiciled  in  the  European  Union  have  an  efficient  remedy  available  in  the  Union  against 
abusive court proceedings brought in a court or tribunal of a third country.  

Chapter VI Final provisions: This Chapter contains rules on the relationship of the Directive 
with the 2007 Lugano Convention, on the review of the application of the  Directive, on the 
transposition into national law, on entry into force and on Member States as addressees. 

EN 

14 

  EN 

2022/0117 (COD) 

Proposal for a 

DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 

on protecting persons who engage in public participation from manifestly unfounded or 
abusive court proceedings (“Strategic lawsuits against public participation”) 

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 

Having  regard  to  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  European  Union,  and  in  particular 
Article 81(2)(f) thereof, 

Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission, 

After transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments, 

Acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, 

Whereas:  

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

Article  2  of  the  Treaty  on  European  Union  states  that  the  Union  is  founded  on  the 
values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and 
respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. 

Article 10(3) of the Treaty on European Union states that every Union citizen has the 
right  to  participate  in  the  democratic  life  of  the  Union.  The  Charter  of  Fundamental 
Rights  of  the  European  Union  (the  ‘Charter’)  provides,  inter  alia,  for  the  rights  to 
respect for private and family life (Article 7), the protection of personal data (Article 
8), freedom of expression and information, which includes respect for the freedom and 
pluralism  of  the  media  (Article  11),  and  to  an  effective  remedy  and  to  a  fair  trial 
(Article 47).  

The  right  to  freedom  of  expression  and  information  as  set  forth  in  Article  11  of  the 
Charter includes the right to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and 
ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. Article 11 of 
the Charter should be given the meaning and scope of the correspondent Article 10 of 
the  European  Convention  on  Human  Rights  (“ECHR”)  on  the  right  to  freedom  of 
expression as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights (“ECtHR”). 

The purpose of this Directive is to provide protection to natural and legal persons who 
engage  in  public  participation  on  matters  of  public  interest,  in  particular  journalists 
and  human  rights  defenders,  against  court  proceedings,  which  are  initiated  against 
them  to  deter  them  from  public  participation  (commonly  referred  to  as  strategic 
lawsuits against public participation or ‘SLAPPs’). 

Journalists play an important role in facilitating public debate and in the imparting and 
reception of information, opinions and ideas.  It is essential that they are afforded the 
necessary  space  to  contribute  to  an  open,  free  and  fair  debate  and  to  counter 
disinformation, information manipulation and interference. Journalists should be able 
to conduct their activities effectively to ensure that citizens have access to a plurality 
of views in European democracies. 

EN 

15 

  EN 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

(9) 

Investigative  journalists  in  particular  play  a  key  role  in  combating  organised  crime, 
corruption  and  extremism.  Their  work  carries  particularly  high  risks  and  they  are 
experiencing  a  growing  number  of  attacks  and  harassment.  A  robust  system  of 
safeguards is needed to enable them to fulfil their crucial role as watchdogs on matters 
of legitimate public interest. 

Human  rights  defenders  also  play  an  important  role  in  European  democracies, 
especially  in  upholding  fundamental  rights,  democratic  values,  social  inclusion, 
environmental  protection  and  the  rule  of  law.  They  should  be  able  to  participate 
actively in  public life and make their voice heard on policy matters and  in  decision-
making  processes  without  fear  of  intimidation.  Human  rights  defenders  refer  to 
individuals or organisations engaged in defending fundamental rights and a variety of 
other  rights,  such  as  environmental  and  climate  rights,  women’s  rights,  LGBTIQ 
rights,  the  rights  of  the  people  with  a  minority  racial  or  ethnic  background,  labour 
rights  or  religious  freedoms.  Other  participants  in  public  debate,  such  as  academics 
and researchers, also deserve adequate protection. 

A healthy and thriving democracy requires that people are able to participate actively 
in  public  debate  without  undue  interference  by  public  authority  or  other  powerful 
actors, be they domestic or foreign. In order to secure meaningful participation, people 
should  be able to  access reliable information,  which enables them to  form  their own 
opinions and exercise their own judgement in a public space in which different views 
can be expressed freely.  

To  foster  this  environment,  it  is  important  to  protect  journalists  and  human  rights 
defenders from court proceedings against public participation. Such court proceedings 
are  not  initiated  for  the  purpose  of  access  to  justice,  but  to  silence  public  debate 
typically using harassment and intimidation.  

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

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

(12)  Those  targeted  by  court  proceedings  against  public  participation  may  face  multiple 
cases  simultaneously,  sometimes  initiated  in  several  jurisdictions.  Proceedings 
initiated in the jurisdiction of one Member State against a person resident in another 
Member  State  are  usually  more  complex  and  costly  for  the  defendant.  Claimants  in 
court proceedings against public participation  may  also  use procedural  tools  to  drive 
up the length and cost of the litigation, and bring cases in a jurisdiction they perceive 
to be favourable for their case, rather than to the court best placed to hear the claim. 
Such practices also place unnecessary and harmful burdens on national court systems. 

EN 

16 

  EN 

(13)  The safeguards provided in this Directive should apply to any natural or legal person 
on  account  of  their  engagement  in  public  participation.  They  should  also  protect 
natural or legal persons who, either on a professional or on a personal basis, support, 
assist  or  provide  goods  or  services  to  another  person  for  purposes  directly  linked  to 
public participation on a matter of public interest. This involves for example internet 
providers,  publishing  houses  or  print  shops,  which  face  or  are  threatened  with  court 
proceedings for providing services to the person targeted with court proceedings.  

(14)  This  Directive  should  apply  to  any  type  of  legal  claim  or  action  of  a  civil  or 
commercial nature with cross-border implications whatever the nature of the court or 
tribunal.  This  includes  civil  claims  brought  in  criminal  proceedings.  It  also  includes 
interim  and  precautionary  measures,  counteractions  or  other  particular  type  of 
remedies available under other instruments. 

(15)  The Directive does not apply to claims arising out of liability of the State for actions or 
omissions  in  the  exercise  of  State  authority  (acta  iure  imperii)  and  claims  against 
officials  who  act  on  behalf  of  the  State  and  liability  for  acts  of  public  authorities, 
including liability of publicly appointed office-holders.  

(16)  Public participation should mean any statement or activity by a natural or legal person 
expressed  or  carried  out  in  exercise  of  the  right  to  freedom  of  expression  and 
information  on  a  matter  of  public  interest,  such  as  the  creation,  exhibition, 
advertisement  or  other  promotion  of  journalistic,  political,  scientific,  academic, 
artistic,  commentary  or  satirical  communications,  publications  or  works,  and  any 
preparatory activities directly linked thereto. It can also include activities related to the 
exercise  of  the  right  to  freedom  of  association  and  peaceful  assembly,  such  as  the 
organisation  of  or participation  to  lobbying  activities, demonstrations and protests or 
activities resulting from the exercise of the right to good administration and the right 
to an effective remedy, such as the filing of complaints, petitions, administrative and 
judicial  claims  and  participation  in  public  hearings.  Public  participation  should  also 
include  preparatory,  supporting  or  assisting  activities  that  have  a  direct  and  inherent 
link  to  the  statement  or  activity  in  question  and  that  are  targeted  to  stifle  public 
participation.  In  addition,  it  can  cover  other  activities  meant  to  inform  or  influence 
public opinion or to further action by the public, including activities by any private or 
public  entity  in  relation  to  an  issue  of  public  interest,  such  as  the  organisation  of  or 
participation to research, surveys, campaigns or any other collective actions.  

(17)  Public  participation  should  not  normally  cover  commercial  advertisement  and 
marketing  activity,  which  are  typically  not  made  in  the  exercise  of  freedom  of 
expression and information.  

(18)  The  notion  of  a  matter  of  public  interest  should  include  also  quality,  safety  or  other 
relevant  aspects  of  goods,  products  or  services  where  such  matters  are  relevant  to 
public health, safety, the environment, climate or enjoyment of fundamental rights. A 
purely  individual  dispute  between  a  consumer  and  a  manufacturer  or  a  service 
provider  concerning  a  good,  product  or  service  should  be  covered  only  when  the 
matter  contains  an  element  of  public  interest,  for  instance  concerning  a  product  or 
service which fails to comply with environmental or safety standards.  

(19)  Activities of a person or entity in the public eye or of public interest are also matters of 
public interest to which the public may legitimately take an interest in. However, there 
is  no  legitimate  interest  involved  where  the  sole  purpose  of  a  statement  or  activity 
concerning such a person or entity is  to  satisfy the curiosity  of a particular  audience 
regarding the details of a person’s private life.  

EN 

17 

  EN 

(20)  Abusive court proceedings typically involve litigation tactics used in bad faith such as 
delaying  proceedings,  causing  disproportionate  costs  to  the  defendant  in  the 
proceedings  or  forum  shopping.  These  tactics  are  used  by  the  claimant  for  other 
purposes  than  gaining  access  to  justice.  Such  tactics  are  often,  although  not  always, 
combined with various forms of intimidation, harassment or threats.  

(21)  A cross-border dimension of SLAPPs adds to the complexity and challenges faced by 
defendants, as they need to deal with proceedings in other jurisdictions, sometimes in 
multiple  jurisdictions  at  the  same  time.  This,  in  turn,  results  in  additional  costs  and 
burdens with even more adverse consequences.  

(22)  A  matter  should  be  considered  to  have  cross-border  implications  unless  both  parties 
are domiciled in the same Member State as the court seised. Even where both parties 
are  domiciled  in  the  same  Member  State  as  the  court  seised,  a  matter  should  be 
considered to have cross-border implications in two other types of situations. The first 
situation is where the specific act of public participation concerning a matter of public 
interest at stake is relevant to more than one Member State. That includes for instance 
public participation in events organised by Union institutions, such as appearances in 
public hearings, or statements or activities on matters that are of specific relevance to 
more than one Member State, such as cross-border pollution or allegations of money 
laundering  with  potential  cross-border  involvement.  The  second  situation  where  a 
matter should be considered to have cross-border implications is when the claimant or 
associated entities have initiated concurrent or previous court proceedings against the 
same or associated defendants in another Member State. These two types of situations 
take into consideration the specific context of SLAPPs. 

(23)  Defendants should be able to apply for the following procedural safeguards: a request 
for a security to cover procedural costs, or procedural costs and damages, a request for 
an early dismissal of manifestly unfounded court proceedings, a request for remedies 
against  abusive  court  proceedings  (award  of  costs,  compensation  of  damages  and 
penalties), or all of them at the same time.  

(24) 

In some abusive court proceedings against public participation, claimants deliberately 
withdraw  or  amend  claims  or  pleadings  to  avoid  awarding  costs  to  the  successful 
party.  This  legal  strategy  may  deprive  the  court  or  tribunal  of  the  power  to 
acknowledge the  abusiveness  of the  court proceeding, leaving the defendant  with  no 
chance to be reimbursed of procedural costs. Such withdrawals or amendments should 
therefore  not  affect  the  possibility  for  the  courts  seised  to  impose  remedies  against 
abusive court proceedings.  

(25) 

If the main claim is dismissed later on in the ordinary proceedings, the defendant may 
still benefit of other remedies against abusive court proceedings such as award of costs 
and compensation of damages. 

(26)  To provide the defendant with an additional safeguard, there should be a possibility to 
grant him or her a security to cover procedural costs and/or damages, when the court 
considers  that  even  if  the  claim  is  not  manifestly  unfounded,  there  are  elements 
indicating an abuse of procedure and the prospects for success in the main proceedings 
are  low.  A  security  does  not  entail  a  judgement  on  the  merits  but  serves  as  a 
precautionary  measure  ensuring  the  effects  of  a  final  decision  finding  an  abuse  of 
procedure.  It  should  be  for  Member  States  to  decide  whether  a  security  should  be 
ordered by the court on its own motion or upon request by the defendant. 

EN 

18 

  EN 

(27)  A  stay  of  the  proceedings,  when  an  application  for  early  dismissal  has  been  filed, 
ensures  that procedural  activity is  suspended, hence reducing the procedural  costs of 
the defendant.  

(28)  To  avoid  any  impact  on  the  access  to  an  effective  remedy,  the  stay  should  be 
temporary and kept until a final decision on the application is taken. A final decision 
means a decision that is no longer subject to judicial review.  

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

(30) 

If a defendant has applied for early dismissal, it should be for the claimant in the main 
proceedings  to  prove  in  the  accelerated  procedure  that  the  claim  is  not  manifestly 
unfounded.  This  does  not  represent  a  limitation  of  access  to  justice,  taking  into 
account  that  the  claimant  carries  the  burden  of  proof  in  relation  to  that  claim  in  the 
main  proceedings  and  only  needs  to  meet  the  much  lower  threshold  of  showing  that 
the claim is not manifestly unfounded in order to avoid an early dismissal. 

(31)  Costs  should  include  all  costs  of  the  proceedings,  including  the  full  costs  of  legal 
representation incurred by the defendant unless such costs are excessive. Costs of legal 
representation  exceeding  amounts  laid  down  in  statutory  fee  tables  should  not  be 
considered  as  excessive  per  se.  Full  compensation  of  damages  should  include  both 
material and immaterial damages, such as physical and psychological harm. 

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

(33) 

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

(34)  This  Directive  creates  a  new  special  ground  of  jurisdiction  in  order  to  ensure  that 
targets  of  SLAPPs  domiciled  in  the  European  Union  have  an  efficient  remedy 
available in the Union against abusive court proceedings brought in a court or tribunal 
of a third country. This special ground of jurisdiction allows the targets domiciled in 

EN 

19 

  EN 

the  European  Union  to  seek,  in  the  courts  or  tribunals  of  their  domicile,  for 
compensation  of  damages  and  costs  incurred  in  connection  with  the  proceedings 
before the court or tribunal of the third country. This right applies irrespective of the 
domicile of the claimant in the proceedings in the third country.  

(35)  This Directive should be without prejudice to the protection that other instruments of 
Union law or national law provide to natural and legal persons that engage in public 
participation. In particular, it does not detract in any way from the  protection offered 
by  Directive  2019/1937  on  the  protection  of  persons  who  report  breaches  of  Union 
law27, as implemented in national law. As regards situations falling within the scope of 
this Directive and of Directive 2019/1937, the protection offered by both acts should 
therefore apply. 

(36)  This  Directive  is  complementary  to  the  Commission  recommendation  on  protecting 
journalists  and  human  rights  defenders  who  engage  in  public  participation  from 
manifestly unfounded or abusive court proceedings (“Strategic lawsuits against public 
participation”). This recommendation is addressed to Member States and it provides a 
comprehensive  toolbox of  measures  including  training,  awareness-raising,  support  to 
targets of abusive court proceedings and data collection, reporting and monitoring of 
court proceedings against public participation.  

(37) 

(38) 

(39) 

In  accordance  with  Articles  1  and  2  of  Protocol  No  22  on  the  position  of  Denmark, 
annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the 
European  Union, Denmark is  not  taking part in  the adoption of this  Directive  and is 
not bound by it or subject to its application. 

[In accordance with Articles 1, 2 and 4a(1) of Protocol No 21 on the position of the 
United  Kingdom  and  Ireland  in  respect  of  the  area  of  freedom,  security  and  justice, 
annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the 
European  Union,  and  without  prejudice  to  Article  4  of  that  Protocol,  Ireland  is  not 
taking  part  in  the  adoption  of  this  Directive  and  is  not  bound  by  it  or  subject  to  its 
application] OR 

[In accordance with Article 3 and Article 4a(1) of Protocol No 21 on the position of 
the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice, 
annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the 
European  Union,  Ireland  has  notified  [,  by  letter  of  …,]  its  wish  to  take  part  in  the 
Directive.]
adoption 

application 

and 

this 

of 

27 

OJ L 305, 26.11.2019, p. 17-56. 

EN 

20 

  EN 

                                                 
HAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE: 

CHAPTER I 

General provisions 

Article 1  

Subject matter 

This  Directive  provides  safeguards  against  manifestly  unfounded  or  abusive  court 
proceedings in civil matters with cross-border implications brought against natural and legal 
persons, in particular journalists and human rights defenders, on account of their engagement 
in public participation. 

Article 2 

Scope 

This  Directive  shall  apply  to  matters  of  a  civil  or  commercial  nature  with  cross-border 
implications, whatever the nature of the court or tribunal. It shall not extend, in particular, to 
revenue, customs or administrative matters or the liability of the State for acts and omissions 
in the exercise of State authority (acta iure imperii). 

Article 3 

Definitions 

For the purposes of this Directive, the following definitions shall apply: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

‘public participation’ means any statement or activity by a natural or legal person 
expressed  or  carried  out  in  the  exercise  of  the  right  to  freedom  of  expression  and 
information  on  a  matter  of  public  interest,  and  preparatory,  supporting  or  assisting 
action  directly  linked  thereto.  This  includes  complaints,  petitions,  administrative  or 
judicial claims and participation in public hearings; 

‘matter  of  public  interest’  means  any  matter  which  affects  the  public  to  such  an 
extent that the public may legitimately take an interest in it, in areas such as:  

(a) 

public  health,  safety,  the  environment,  climate  or  enjoyment  of  fundamental 
rights; 

(b) 

activities of a person or entity in the public eye or of public interest;  

(c)  matters  under  public  consideration  or  review  by  a  legislative,  executive,  or 

judicial body, or any other public official proceedings;  

(d) 

allegations of corruption, fraud or criminality; 

(e) 

activities aimed to fight disinformation; 

‘abusive court proceedings against public participation’ mean court proceedings 
brought  in  relation  to  public  participation  that  are  fully  or  partially  unfounded  and 
have  as  their  main  purpose  to  prevent,  restrict  or  penalize  public  participation. 
Indications of such a purpose can be: 

(a) 

the  disproportionate,  excessive  or  unreasonable  nature  of  the  claim  or  part 
thereof;  

EN 

21 

  EN 

(b) 

(c) 

the  existence  of  multiple  proceedings  initiated  by  the  claimant  or  associated 
parties in relation to similar matters;  

intimidation,  harassment  or  threats  on  the  part  of  the  claimant  or  his  or  her 
representatives. 

Article 4 

Matters with cross-border implications 

1. 

2. 

For  the  purposes  of  this  Directive,  a  matter  is  considered  to  have  cross-border 
implications unless both parties are domiciled in the same Member State as the court 
seised.  

Where both parties to the proceedings are domiciled in the same Member State as the 
court seised, the matter shall also be considered to have cross-border implications if:  

(a) 

(b) 

the  act  of  public  participation  concerning  a  matter  of  public  interest  against 
which  court  proceedings  are  initiated  is  relevant  to  more  than  one  Member 
State, or 

the  claimant  or  associated  entities  have  initiated  concurrent  or  previous  court 
proceedings  against  the  same  or  associated  defendants  in  another  Member 
State. 

CHAPTER II 

Common rules on procedural safeguards 

Article 5 

Applications for procedural safeguards 

1. 

Member States shall ensure that when court proceedings are brought against natural 
or legal persons on account of their engagement in public participation, those persons 
can apply for: 

(a) 

(b) 

security in accordance with Article 8;  

early dismissal of manifestly unfounded court proceedings in accordance with 
Chapter III;  

(c) 

remedies against abusive court proceedings in accordance with Chapter IV. 

2. 

Such applications shall include: 

(a) 

a description of the elements on which they are based; 

(b) 

a description of the supporting evidence. 

3. 

Member  States  may  provide  that  measures  on  procedural  safeguards  in  accordance 
with Chapters III and IV can be taken by the court or tribunal seised of the matter ex 
officio. 

Article 6 

Subsequent amendment to claim or pleadings 

EN 

22 

  EN 

Member States shall ensure that  any subsequent  amendments  to  the  claims  or the pleadings 
made by the claimant in the main proceedings, including the discontinuation of proceedings, 
do not affect the possibility for the court or tribunal seised of the matter to consider the court 
proceedings abusive and to impose remedies in accordance with Chapter IV. 

Article 7 

Third party intervention 

Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that  a court or tribunal seised of 
court  proceedings  against  public  participation  may  accept 
that  non-governmental 
organisations safeguarding or promoting the rights of persons engaging in public participation 
may  take  part  in  those  proceedings,  either  in  support  of  the  defendant  or  to  provide 
information.  

Article 8 

Security 

Member states shall ensure that in court proceedings against public participation, the court or 
tribunal seised has the power to require the claimant to provide security for procedural costs, 
or  for  procedural  costs  and  damages,  if  it  considers  such  security  appropriate  in  view  of 
presence of elements indicating abusive court proceedings.  

Early dismissal of manifestly unfounded court proceedings 

CHAPTER III 

Article 9 

Early dismissal 

1. 

2. 

Member  States  shall  empower  courts  and  tribunals  to  adopt  an  early  decision  to 
dismiss, in full or in part, court proceedings against public participation as manifestly 
unfounded. 

Member  States  may  establish  time  limits  for  the  exercise  of  the  right  to  file  an 
application for early dismissal. The time limits shall be proportionate and not render 
such exercise impossible or excessively difficult.  

Article 10 

Stay of the main proceedings 

Member  States  shall  ensure  that  if  the  defendant  applies  for  early  dismissal,  the  main 
proceedings are stayed until a final decision on that application is taken.  

Article 11 

Accelerated procedure 

EN 

23 

  EN 

Member States shall ensure that an application for early dismissal is treated in an accelerated 
procedure,  taking  into  account  the  circumstances  of  the  case  and  the  right  to  an  effective 
remedy and the right to a fair trial. 

Article 12 

Burden of proof 

Member States shall ensure that where a defendant has applied for early dismissal, it shall be 
for the claimant to prove that the claim is not manifestly unfounded.  

Article 13 

Appeal 

Member  States  shall  ensure  that  a  decision  refusing  or  granting  early  dismissal  pursuant  to 
Article 9 is subject to an appeal. 

CHAPTER IV 

Remedies against abusive court proceedings 

Article 14 

Award of costs 

Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that a claimant who has brought 
abusive court proceedings against public participation can be ordered to bear all the costs of 
the  proceedings,  including  the  full  costs  of  legal  representation  incurred  by  the  defendant, 
unless such costs are excessive. 

Article 15 

Compensation of damages 

Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that a natural or legal person who 
has suffered harm as a result of  an  abusive court proceedings  against  public participation  is 
able to claim and to obtain full compensation for that harm.  

Article 16  

Penalties 

Member  States  shall  provide  that  courts  or  tribunals  seised  of  abusive  court  proceedings 
against  public  participation  have  the  possibility  to  impose  effective,  proportionate  and 
dissuasive penalties on the party who brought those proceedings.  

CHAPTER V 

EN 

24 

  EN 

Protection against third-country judgments 

Grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement of a third-country judgment 

Article 17 

Member States shall ensure that the recognition and enforcement of a third-country judgment 
in court proceedings on account of public participation by natural or legal person domiciled in 
a  Member  State  is  refused  as  manifestly  contrary  to  public  policy  (ordre  public)  if  those 
proceedings  would  have  been  considered  manifestly  unfounded  or  abusive  if  they  had  been 
brought before the courts or tribunals of the Member State where recognition or enforcement 
is sought and those courts or tribunals would have applied their own law.  

Jurisdiction for actions against third-country judgments  

Article 18 

Member States shall ensure that, where abusive court proceedings on account of engagement 
in  public  participation  have  been  brought  in  a  court  or  tribunal  of  a  third  country  against  a 
natural  or legal  person domiciled in  a Member State, that person  may  seek, in  the courts  or 
tribunals  of  the  place  where  he  is  domiciled,  compensation  of  the  damages  and  the  costs 
incurred in connection with the proceedings before the court or tribunal of the third country, 
irrespective of the domicile of the claimant in the proceedings in the third country.  

CHAPTER VI 

Final provisions 

Article 19 

Relations with the 2007 Lugano Convention 

This  Directive  shall  not  affect  the  application  of  the  Convention  on  jurisdiction  and  the 
recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, signed in Lugano 
on 30 October 2007.  

Article 20 

Review 

Member  States  shall  provide  the  Commission  with  all  relevant  information  regarding  the 
application of this Directive by [5 years from the date of transposition]. On the basis of the 
information provided, the Commission shall by [6 years from the date of transposition] at the 
latest, submit to the European Parliament and the Council a report on the application of this 
Directive.  The  report  shall  provide  an  assessment  of  the  evolution  of  abusive  court 
proceedings  against  public  participation  and  the  impact  of  this  Directive  in  the  Member 
States. If necessary, the report shall be accompanied by proposals to amend this Directive.  

Article 21 

Transposition into national law 

EN 

25 

  EN 

1. 

Member  States  shall  bring  into  force  the  laws,  regulations  and  administrative 
provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by [2 years from the date of entry 
into  force  of  this  Directive]  at  the  latest.  They  shall  forthwith  communicate  to  the 
Commission the text of those provisions. 

When  Member  States  adopt  those  provisions,  they  shall  contain  a  reference  to  this 
Directive  or  be  accompanied  by  such  a  reference  on  the  occasion  of  their  official 
publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made. 

2. 

Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions 
of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.  

Article 22 

Entry into force 

This Directive shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in 
the Official Journal of the European Union. 

Article 23 

Addressees 

This Directive is addressed to the Member States. 

Done at Brussels, 

For the European Parliament 
The President 

For the Council 
The President 

EN 

26 

  EN