1. Meaning of SLAPP

SLAPP means Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.

A SLAPP is generally understood as litigation or threatened litigation used primarily to intimidate, burden, silence, or financially exhaust a person because they participated in public debate.

Typical targets include:

• journalists;
• investigative reporters;
• publishers;
• academics;
• researchers;
• whistleblowers;
• human-rights defenders;
• environmental activists;
• civil-society organizations;
• campaigners.

Typical SLAPP claims involve:

• defamation;
• privacy;
• reputation;
• commercial harm;
• confidentiality;
• copyright;
• trade secrets;
• breach of contract;
• civil harassment;
• damages claims.

The central problem is that a claimant may have a formally arguable legal claim but use litigation strategically to suppress legitimate public participation.

2. What Are Anti-SLAPP Remedies?

Anti-SLAPP remedies are procedural and substantive mechanisms designed to prevent abusive litigation from chilling legitimate expression and public participation.

They may include:

1. early dismissal;
2. expedited hearings;
3. security for costs;
4. costs sanctions;
5. damages against abusive litigants;
6. protection against forum shopping;
7. protection against enforcement of abusive foreign judgments;
8. protection of journalists and public-interest speakers;
9. disclosure of litigation funding;
10. reversal or limitation of burdensome interim measures.

European anti-SLAPP protection is increasingly based on the relationship between:

freedom of expression + access to justice + abuse of process + proportionality.

3. European Legal Framework

The principal rights are:

Article 10 ECHR

Protects:

• freedom of expression;
• freedom of the press;
• dissemination of information and ideas.

Article 11 ECHR

Protects:

• freedom of assembly;
• freedom of association.

Article 6 ECHR

Protects:

• access to a fair tribunal;
• procedural fairness.

Article 13 ECHR

Requires an effective remedy for Convention-rights violations.

EU Charter Article 11

Protects freedom of expression and information.

EU Charter Article 47

Protects effective judicial protection.

4. EU Anti-SLAPP Directive

The EU adopted Directive (EU) 2024/1069, commonly known as the Anti-SLAPP Directive.

It addresses abusive court proceedings brought to silence persons engaged in public participation.

The Directive is particularly concerned with:

• cross-border civil matters;
• manifestly unfounded claims;
• abusive litigation;
• early dismissal;
• costs;
• compensation;
• penalties;
• protection against foreign proceedings.

It represents a major development in European procedural protection for journalists and civil society.

5. Case Law

There is no single historical European doctrine called “anti-SLAPP law.” Instead, the European Court of Human Rights developed important principles through Article 10 cases concerning abusive or disproportionate litigation against journalists and public-interest speakers.

Case 1 — Steel and Morris v United Kingdom

Court: ECtHR, Grand Chamber
Year: 2005

Facts

Helen Steel and David Morris distributed criticism concerning McDonald's and became defendants in extensive defamation litigation.

They represented themselves for much of the litigation and faced a powerful corporate claimant.

Decision

The ECtHR found violations of Article 6 and Article 10 ECHR.

Principle

The Court emphasized the importance of:

• equality of arms;
• practical access to justice;
• freedom to criticize powerful commercial entities;
• proportionality of restrictions on expression.

Anti-SLAPP relevance

This is one of the most important European authorities for the structural problem behind SLAPP litigation.

A legally available defamation action may become incompatible with Convention rights where the litigation process creates a disproportionate burden on defendants and chills public-interest expression.

Case 2 — Tolstoy Miloslavsky v United Kingdom

Court: ECtHR
Year: 1995

Facts

The applicant was ordered to pay substantial damages in a defamation case.

He argued that the size of the award interfered disproportionately with freedom of expression.

Decision

The ECtHR found a violation of Article 10 because the damages regime did not satisfy the required proportionality standards.

Principle

Defamation remedies themselves must be proportionate.

Anti-SLAPP relevance

A SLAPP can operate through the threat of enormous damages.

Therefore:

A damages award cannot become a mechanism for suppressing legitimate public debate.

This principle is especially important for:

• investigative journalism;
• allegations concerning powerful corporations;
• political criticism;
• environmental campaigns.

Case 3 — Steel and Morris: Corporate Power and Public Debate

The significance of Steel and Morris extends beyond legal aid.

Core issue

The case demonstrated the imbalance that can arise when:

• a wealthy corporation;
• employs specialist lawyers;
• brings complex litigation;
• against individuals with limited financial resources.

Principle

Article 10 protection must be considered in light of the practical consequences of litigation, not merely the theoretical right to speak.

Anti-SLAPP application

A court considering an anti-SLAPP application may therefore consider:

• claimant's resources;
• defendant's resources;
• complexity;
• duration;
• costs;
• public-interest character;
• chilling effect.

Case 4 — Mamère v France

Court: ECtHR
Year: 2006

Facts

A French politician made critical statements concerning government handling of a major environmental disaster.

He was convicted for defamation.

Decision

The ECtHR found a violation of Article 10.

Principle

Political speech and discussion of matters of public interest receive strong protection.

Anti-SLAPP relevance

Environmental and public-health controversies frequently generate SLAPP-type litigation.

Where the speech concerns:

• environmental disasters;
• government accountability;
• public health;
• corporate responsibility,

the State must demonstrate particularly strong justification for restricting expression.

Case 5 — Colombani and Others v France

Court: ECtHR
Year: 2002

Facts

Journalists published material concerning the Moroccan monarch and alleged drug-related matters.

French authorities prosecuted them under special rules protecting foreign heads of state from criticism.

Decision

The ECtHR found a violation of Article 10.

Principle

Public figures, including political leaders, must tolerate a greater degree of criticism.

Anti-SLAPP relevance

SLAPPs frequently involve powerful individuals attempting to use reputation laws to suppress criticism.

Colombani establishes that:

Special legal protection for powerful public figures cannot automatically override freedom of expression.

Case 6 — Cumpănă and Mazăre v Romania

Court: ECtHR, Grand Chamber
Year: 2004

Facts

Two journalists were convicted following publication of an article concerning alleged corruption involving public officials.

They received severe criminal sanctions.

Decision

The Grand Chamber found a violation of Article 10.

Principle

Criminal sanctions for journalistic expression can have a powerful chilling effect.

Anti-SLAPP relevance

Although not a modern civil SLAPP case, it illustrates the broader European principle that disproportionate legal sanctions can discourage journalists and others from participating in public debate.

Case 7 — Otegi Mondragon v Spain

Court: ECtHR
Year: 2011

Facts

A politician made strongly critical comments about the Spanish head of state and was criminally convicted.

Decision

The ECtHR found a violation of Article 10.

Principle

Political expression enjoys a particularly high level of protection.

Anti-SLAPP relevance

Where litigation targets political speech, courts must take into account:

• public-interest character;
• political context;
• status of the speaker;
• status of the target;
• chilling effect.

Case 8 — Delfi AS v Estonia

Court: ECtHR, Grand Chamber
Year: 2015

Facts

An online news portal was held liable for offensive comments posted by third parties.

Decision

The Grand Chamber accepted that liability could, in particular circumstances, be compatible with Article 10.

Principle

Freedom of expression on the Internet must be balanced against the rights and reputation of others.

Anti-SLAPP relevance

The case is important because SLAPPs increasingly target:

• online publishers;
• platforms;
• bloggers;
• social-media operators.

It also demonstrates that Article 10 does not create absolute immunity from civil responsibility.

Case 9 — MTE and Index.hu v Hungary

Court: ECtHR
Year: 2016

Facts

Two online news organizations were held liable for user comments posted on their websites.

Decision

The ECtHR found a violation of Article 10.

Principle

Courts must consider:

• context;
• nature of comments;
• public interest;
• contribution to debate;
• impact of liability.

Anti-SLAPP relevance

This case is important for understanding why automatic liability rules can create a chilling effect.

Case 10 — OOO Memo v Russia

Court: ECtHR
Year: 2022

Facts

The case concerned civil proceedings and substantial consequences arising from publication of material concerning matters of public interest.

Principle

The Court continued to emphasize the importance of proportionality when domestic courts impose liability for expression.

Anti-SLAPP relevance

The case illustrates that financial and procedural burdens must be evaluated in the broader Article 10 context.

6. Core Anti-SLAPP Remedy: Early Dismissal

The most powerful anti-SLAPP mechanism is:

Dismiss the case before the defendant incurs substantial litigation costs.

A court may consider:

1. Is the claim manifestly unfounded?
2. Does it concern public participation?
3. Is the claimant seeking to intimidate or silence?
4. Is there evidence of abusive litigation?
5. Would continued proceedings create a disproportionate chilling effect?

The EU Anti-SLAPP Directive strengthens the importance of this approach in qualifying cross-border cases.

7. Costs as an Anti-SLAPP Remedy

SLAPPs can succeed even when the claimant ultimately loses.

Why?

Because the defendant may spend:

• €50,000;
• €100,000;
• €500,000;

defending the litigation.

Therefore, an effective anti-SLAPP framework may require courts to consider cost consequences early.

Possible remedies include:

• ordering the claimant to pay costs;
• denying costs to an abusive claimant;
• imposing enhanced costs;
• requiring security for costs.

8. Compensation for SLAPP Victims

A particularly important development is the idea that the victim should not merely defeat the lawsuit.

The victim may also need compensation for:

• financial losses;
• reputational harm;
• legal expenses;
• professional losses;
• other legally recognized damage.

Under the EU Anti-SLAPP framework, compensation and penalties can form part of the response to abusive proceedings.

9. Anti-SLAPP and Cross-Border Litigation

SLAPPs may involve jurisdiction shopping.

Example:

A journalist in France publishes an investigation about a multinational corporation. The corporation attempts to sue in another European jurisdiction perceived as more claimant-friendly.

This creates:

forum shopping + high costs + intimidation.

European anti-SLAPP rules seek to limit the effectiveness of such tactics.

10. Foreign Judgments

Another important problem is:

What happens if a SLAPP claimant obtains a judgment in a foreign jurisdiction and attempts to enforce it against the journalist?

An effective anti-SLAPP regime can restrict recognition or enforcement where proceedings are abusive or fundamentally inconsistent with European public policy.

This is particularly important where:

• the publication occurred in one country;
• claimant resides in another;
• publisher operates in a third;
• judgment is obtained elsewhere.

11. Public Participation

Anti-SLAPP protection generally focuses on public participation, rather than giving journalists blanket immunity.

Public participation may include:

• publishing an investigation;
• criticizing public officials;
• environmental campaigning;
• participation in demonstrations;
• public-interest research;
• reporting corporate misconduct;
• whistleblowing;
• communicating with regulators;
• consumer warnings;
• academic debate.

12. Public Interest

The stronger the public interest, the stronger the Article 10 protection is generally likely to be.

High-public-interest subjects include:

• corruption;
• environmental damage;
• public health;
• government misconduct;
• corporate wrongdoing;
• consumer safety;
• human rights;
• political affairs.

13. SLAPP Indicators

Courts may consider whether the litigation displays characteristics such as:

A. Disproportionate damages

Claimant seeks extraordinarily high compensation.

B. Multiple defendants

Several journalists or organizations are sued simultaneously.

C. Multiple jurisdictions

Proceedings are brought in different countries.

D. Repeated litigation

Similar claims are brought repeatedly.

E. Weak legal basis

The claim appears legally or factually weak.

F. Procedural pressure

The claimant seeks extensive disclosure or interim orders that impose major burdens.

G. Chilling effect

The litigation appears designed to discourage future reporting.

14. SLAPP Does Not Mean Every Defamation Claim Is Abusive

This distinction is crucial.

A person has legitimate rights to protect:

• reputation;
• privacy;
• confidential information;
• trade secrets;
• intellectual property.

Therefore:

Anti-SLAPP law does not eliminate legitimate defamation or privacy claims.

The legal challenge is to identify when legitimate legal protection crosses into abusive litigation designed principally to suppress participation.

15. Balancing Article 10 and Reputation

European courts generally balance:

Speaker's interests

• freedom of expression;
• journalism;
• public debate.

Against:

Target's interests

• reputation;
• privacy;
• personal dignity.

The analysis commonly considers:

• contribution to public debate;
• status of claimant;
• status of speaker;
• factual allegations vs value judgments;
• truth;
• source reliability;
• manner of publication;
• severity of sanction.

16. Interim Injunctions

Interim injunctions can be particularly powerful in SLAPP litigation.

For example, a claimant may seek an order preventing a journalist from publishing further material.

Such an order can cause irreversible harm to public debate.

European courts therefore scrutinize prior restraints particularly carefully.

A court should consider:

• urgency;
• strength of claim;
• public interest;
• potential harm;
• proportionality;
• alternative remedies.

17. Evidence in Anti-SLAPP Applications

A defendant should preserve:

• publication;
• source documents;
• research notes;
• correspondence;
• editorial records;
• fact-checking records;
• expert reports;
• correspondence with claimant;
• previous threats;
• claimant's litigation history;
• jurisdictional documents;
• cost estimates.

Evidence can help establish:

public participation + abusive purpose + disproportionate burden.

18. Defences to a SLAPP

The defendant may argue:

1. Truth

The factual allegation is substantially true.

2. Honest opinion

The statement represents an honestly held opinion based on disclosed facts.

3. Public interest

Publication was justified because it contributed to an important public debate.

4. Privilege

The communication is protected by a privilege recognized under national law.

5. Lack of serious harm

The claimant cannot establish legally sufficient damage.

6. Abuse of process

The litigation is being used for an improper purpose.

7. Proportionality

The requested remedy would disproportionately interfere with Article 10.

19. Remedies Available

A strong European anti-SLAPP framework may provide:

Procedural remedies

• early dismissal;
• expedited proceedings;
• stay of proceedings;
• summary determination;
• security for costs.

Financial remedies

• costs;
• compensation;
• damages;
• penalties;
• reimbursement of defence expenses.

Protective remedies

• refusal of enforcement;
• restrictions on abusive foreign proceedings;
• protection against repeated proceedings.

Constitutional remedies

• declaration of incompatibility;
• annulment;
• judicial review;
• Convention-based relief.

20. Comparative Case Table

21. Six Most Important Principles

Principle 1 — Public participation receives heightened protection

Journalism, political criticism, environmental campaigning and other public-interest activity fall within the core of Article 10.

Principle 2 — Legal validity does not eliminate abuse

A claim can be formally pleaded under defamation or privacy law but still raise serious anti-SLAPP concerns if litigation is being used abusively.

Principle 3 — Costs themselves can chill speech

The financial burden of litigation can be as important as the final judgment.

Principle 4 — Remedies must be proportionate

Defamation damages, injunctions and other restrictions cannot be excessive.

Principle 5 — Powerful claimants do not receive unlimited protection

Corporations and public officials retain legal rights, but public-interest criticism receives substantial protection.

Principle 6 — Effective remedies must operate early

If the journalist has to spend years defending a meritless case before obtaining victory, the anti-SLAPP objective may already have failed.

22. Practical Anti-SLAPP Legal Test

A court can approach an alleged SLAPP through the following sequence:

1. Is the defendant engaged in public participation?

↓

2. Does the lawsuit arise from that participation?

↓

3. Does the claim have a substantial legal and factual foundation?

↓

4. Is there evidence of an abusive or intimidatory purpose?

↓

5. Is the litigation imposing disproportionate financial/procedural burdens?

↓

6. Does Article 10 ECHR or Article 11 of the EU Charter apply?

↓

7. Is the claimant's reputation/privacy/property interest legitimate?

↓

8. Can the dispute be resolved through a less restrictive remedy?

↓

9. Should the proceedings be dismissed, expedited, or otherwise restricted?

↓

10. Should costs, compensation, or penalties follow?

Conclusion

Anti-SLAPP remedies in Europe represent the developing legal response to abusive litigation intended to silence public participation. They are built upon the interaction of freedom of expression, public-interest journalism, access to justice, proportionality, abuse of process and procedural fairness.

The most important authorities include Steel and Morris v United Kingdom, which illustrates the dangers of massive inequality in public-interest litigation; Tolstoy Miloslavsky v United Kingdom, concerning disproportionate defamation damages; Mamère v France, concerning environmental and public-interest criticism; Colombani v France and Otegi Mondragon v Spain, concerning criticism of powerful public figures; and Cumpănă and Mazăre v Romania, concerning the chilling effect of severe sanctions.

The modern European position can be summarized as:

A person must be able to seek judicial protection of reputation and other legitimate interests, but litigation cannot be transformed into an instrument for intimidating, exhausting, or silencing participation in matters of legitimate public concern.

The EU Anti-SLAPP Directive of 2024 significantly strengthens this approach, particularly for cross-border civil proceedings, by emphasizing early dismissal, costs protection, compensation, penalties, and safeguards against abusive foreign proceedings.