Activities of Angel DZHAMBAZKI related to 2021/2036(INI)
Legal basis opinions (0)
Amendments (17)
Amendment 39 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
A a. Whereas online platforms like Google, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and others have censored content and journalists, which influenced negatively the debates on important issues and deprived people of knowing diverse opinions or different facts about important matters;
Amendment 77 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas SLAPPs have become an increasingly widespread practice used against journalists, and academics, civil society and NGOs, as demonstrated by many cases throughout the Union, such as the chilling case of investigative journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia, who was reportedly facing 47 civil and criminal defamation lawsuits, (resulting in the freezing of her assets) on the day of her strongly condemned assassination on 16 October 2017, and the lawsuits her heirs continue to face; whereas other illustrative and alarming cases include Realtid Media, which was repeatedly threatened with a lawsuit in a different jurisdiction from where the reporting in question took place, and Gazeta Wyborcza, which continues to be sued by a number of public entities and officials on a regular basis;; notes with concern the chilling murder attempt on the life of the Dutch investigative journalist Peter R de Vries despite the Netherlands being ranked 6th in the press freedom index.
Amendment 104 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas SLAPPs within the Union are often cross-border in nature, which results in reporting delays as illustrated in many cases, often relating to cases of environmental protection, financial fraud and/or corruption, where they may constitute a clearn attempt to delay publication of information by halting or discrediting the work of individual journalists and publishing entities, hence depriving citizens of their right to information;
Amendment 126 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Highlights that SLAPPs are a direct attack on the exercise of fundamental rights and freedoms; underlines that fundamental rights and democracy are linked to upholding the rule of law, and that undermining media freedom and public democratic participation threatens Union values as enshrined in Article 2 of the TEU; welcomes the fact that the rule of law report includes SLAPP lawsuits in its assessment of media freedom and pluralism across the Union, and points to best practices in countering them; calls for the annual report to include a thorough assessment of the legal environment for the media, and investigative journalism in particular;
Amendment 145 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Emphasises that public participation also has an important role to play in the proper functioning of the internal market, as it is often throughvia public participation that breaches of Union law, corruption and other practices threatening the proper functioning of the internal market are made known to the public;;
Amendment 168 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. Highlights that in a democratic society the judicial system has a duty to keep a balance between competing human rights such as the freedom of expression and information, on one side, and the right to protect one's reputation, private and family life, on the other side;
Amendment 183 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Highlights that in recent years online hate speech has become increasingly widespread against journalists, NGOs, and academics and civil society, including those defending LGBTQI rights, thus threatening media freedom, freedom of expression and public safety given that online hate speech canould incite real-world violence;;
Amendment 195 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Stresses that SLAPPs are often meritless, frivolous or based on exaggerated claims, and that in specific cases they are not initiated for the purposes of obtaining a favourable judicial outcome but rather only to intimidate, harass, tire out, put psychological pressure on or consume the financial resources of journalists, academics, or civil society and NGOs, with the ultimate objective of blackmailing and forcing them into silence through the judicial procedure itself; , ;points out that this chilling effect canould lead to self- censorship, suppressing participation in democratic life, and also discourages others from similar actions, from entering into these professions or from proceeding with relevant associated activities;
Amendment 203 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6 a. Calls on the end of censorship by giant online social platforms like Google, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and others, and stresses the they have to respect the fundamental right of people to know diverse opinions and facts, as well as to express them accordingly;
Amendment 209 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Points out that not all litigants that resort to SLAPPs use and abuse criminal defamation laws, civil lawsuits for libel, protection of one’s reputation or based on intellectual property rights such as copyright, but also that a variety of; notes, however that other instruments isare used to silence public participation, such as labour sanctions (dismissal), criminal charges of tax fraud, tax audit procedures and abuse of data protection rules;
Amendment 228 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Stresses, with regard to this problem, that all Member States lack harmonised minimum standards to protect journalists, academics, civil society and NGOs and to ensure that fundamental rights are upheld in the Member States;;
Amendment 235 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. RegretNotes that no Member State has so far enacted targeted legislation to provide protection against SLAPPs; notes however that anti-SLAPP legislation is particularly well-developed in the states of the United States, in Australia and Canada; encourages the Commission to analyse anti-SLAPP best practices currently applied outside the EU which could provide valuable inspiration for Union legislative and non-legislative measures on the matter; underlines the importance of committing to the most ambitious legislation and best-practices currently in force which would discourage the use of SLAPPs in the Union;
Amendment 243 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Agrees with theUnderlines that numerous academics, legal practitioners and victims who point to the need for legislative action against the growing problem of SLAPPs; urgently calls, therefore, for the Brussels I and Rome II Regulations to be amendments in order to prevent ‘libel tourism’ or ‘forum shopping’; urgently calls for the introduction of a uniform choice of law rule for defamation, as well as for proposals for binding Union legislation on harmonised and effective safeguards for victims of SLAPPs across the Union, including through a directive; argues that without such legislative action, SLAPPs will continue to threaten the rule of law and the fundamental rights of freedom of expression, association and information in the Union; is concerned that if measures only address lawsuits regarding information, actions based on other civil matters or criminal procedures may still be used;
Amendment 278 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Considers that it is essential to adopt a legislative measure protecting the role of journalists, academics, civil society and NGOs in preventing breaches of Union law and ensuring the proper functioning of the internal market; urges the Commission to present a proposal for legislation that sets out safeguards for persons investigating and reporting on these matters of public interest;;
Amendment 288 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Urges the Commission to present a proposal for a dmeasure that develops judicial cooperation in civil matters so as to address cross-border SLAPP cases by providing for rules on the dismissal of abusive lawsuits and other actions in court that have the purpose of preventing public participation, which should include sanctions, consideration of abusive motives even if the lawsuit or action is not dismissed, costs and damages; calls on the Commission, further, to address questions giving rise to forum shopping and libel tourism in a forthcoming review of the Brussels I Rome II Regulations;;
Amendment 301 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Urges the Commission to present a proposal for measures to ensure thatwith clear requirements under which defamation, libel and slander, which constitute criminal offences in most Member States, cannot be regarded as used for SLAPPs, including through private prosecution; underlines the calls of the Council of Europe and OSCE for the decriminalisation of defamation; invites the Commission to address the question of the seriousness of threats of SLAPPs in a legislative proposal; notes that defendants often face criminal charges while at the same time being sued for civil liability allegedly arising from the same conduct;;
Amendment 311 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Declares that the protection of legitimate rights arising from Union law must be ensured by Member State courts and cannot be jeopardised, including the rights which are routinely cited in abusive lawsuits; defends at the same time and without prejudice to such protection, that it is necessary to prevent any abusive use of those rights in a manner which is manifestly contrary to the legislators’ intention when conferring them upon natural or legal persons; considers that preventing such abuse is equally necessary for the correct and uniform application of Union law, thereby safeguarding its effectiveness; notes however that a balance needs to be found in order not to deprive citizens from their right to go to trail and seek protection of their rights against false claims and defamation to their persona;