25 Amendments of Tomasz FRANKOWSKI related to 2022/0117(COD)
Amendment 69 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) The purpose of this Directive is to provideensure proper functioning of the judicial system by providing 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 with the sole purpose of deterring to deter them from public participation (commonly referred to as strategic lawsuits against public participation or ‘SLAPPs’). Such court proceedings may be considered as abusive by the relevant judicial body handling the initial claim against the person engaging in public participation on matters of public interest. The safeguards laid down in this Directive should be complementary to the ongoing media literacy programmes and awareness rising campaigns throughout the EU, informing citizens of the existent threats, abuses and remedies to such attacks on the proper functioning of the judicial system.
Amendment 74 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 4 a (new)
Recital 4 a (new)
(4 a) It should be also noted that public participation may not always be conducted in good faith. The dissemination of fake news or disinformation should not be protected under this Directive. Bearing in mind the continuously evolving digital environment and the possibilities to spread, copy and influence the public opinion, the concept of public participation on matters of public interest should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. In case where there is a legitimate concern by the court that the defendant may be part of a targeted hybrid attack or a disinformation campaign, the safeguards laid down in the current Directive should not be applicable.
Amendment 75 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) An independent, impartial, professional and responsible media is a cornerstone of democracy. There is a pressing need to maintain the independence of the media from political and economic pressure, such as the one used through 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 conduct their journalistic activities in good faith and 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.
Amendment 85 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) 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, where in which different views can be expressed freely. Therefore, media literacy programmes and anti- disinformation campaigns should be an essential instrument for Member States to protect their citizens against undue interference in the public debate. Legal professionals, handling cases related to public participation of individuals acting on matters of public interest, should be offered adequate trainings on how to effectively identify an abuse of procedure in the detriment of the defendant, who is considered acting on a matter of public interest.
Amendment 90 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 9
Recital 9
(9) To foster this environment,a healthy and thriving democracy 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, any private or public entity acting in public interest, or indirectly participating in such actions, from court proceedings aimed to silence them on a particular matter of public interest. Such court proceedings may be considered as abusive in case there is a legitimate suspicion by the competent judicial body that they are not initiated for the purpose of access to justice, but to exploit procedural instruments in order to silence public debate.
Amendment 93 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 9 a (new)
Recital 9 a (new)
(9 a) Digitalization has profoundly changed the media landscape with new ways to access, share or retrieve online news items. Currently accessibility of online material where public participation in debate over matters of public matters occurs on the internet and often transcends national borders and it has become increasingly difficult to locate and estimate the scope of online media coverage in the remit of only Member State. It is therefore important to assess the localisation of public participation in the digital environment in the broadest sense possible
Amendment 94 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 9 b (new)
Recital 9 b (new)
(9 b) Media literacy programmes are an essential tool to foster a thriving democratic public debate and public participation. In order to prevent the misuse of the existing procedural safeguards, an emphasize should be put on proper training and upskilling of legal professionals dealing with SLAPP cases, taking fully into account the established case-law of the European Court of Human Rights.
Amendment 95 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 9 c (new)
Recital 9 c (new)
(9 c) While respecting the editorial freedom of journalists and the media, Member States should encourage awareness-raising activities for the benefit of journalists and other media actors, on the importance of acting in accordance with journalistic, legal or other professional ethics as a prevention tool against SLAPPs. Member States should also develop or facilitate the development of wider awareness-raising strategies and measures aimed at the general public that focus on SLAPPs and their harmful impact.
Amendment 111 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 19
Recital 19
(19) Activities of a person or entity in the public eye or of public interestublic figure 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.
Amendment 112 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 20
Recital 20
(20) Abusive cCourt proceedings typmay be considered as abusive by the competent judiciall authority when they involve litigation tactics used in bad faith such as delaying proceedings, causing disproportionate costs to the defendant in the proceedings or forum shopping. TIn these tactics are used by the claimant for other purposes than gaining access to justice. Such tactics are often, although not always,cases where the claimant is in a significantly more influential position than the defendant, who is acting on a matter of public interest, it may be considered that the claimant doesn’t primarily seek to benefit from his basic right to access to justice. Such proceedings may be combined with various forms of intimidation, harassment or threats.
Amendment 117 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 22
Recital 22
(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 aA matter should also 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.
Amendment 121 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 23 a (new)
Recital 23 a (new)
(23 a) Bearing in mind that victims of ongoing and closed SLAPP cases may be subjected to financial burden, psychological pressure and other types of threats and intimidation, Member States should develop and oversee the implementation of support programmes, including a comprehensive range of necessary support measures, such as legal, financial, psychological and practical ones. There should also be a proper State reaction to the threats to the security and physical integrity of victims. Such support programmes should be developed respecting the specificity of the claim, the matter of public interest in question and of the specific situation of the victim.
Amendment 150 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1
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 on matters of public interest.
Amendment 155 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 1
1. ‘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, andincluding preparatory, supporting or assisting action directly linked thereto. This includes complaints, petitions, administrative or judicial claims and participation in public hearings;
Amendment 156 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – introductory part
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – introductory part
2. ‘matter of public interest’ means any matterfinancial or regulatory matter, excluding matters of inidividual interest, which affects the public to such an extent that the public may legitimately take an interest in it, in areas such as:
Amendment 159 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a
(a) fundamental rights, public health, public safety, the environment, or climate or enjoyment of fundamental rights;
Amendment 161 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point b
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point b
Amendment 162 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point d
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point d
(d) allegations of corruption, fraud orriminal offences related to public issues, such as high level corruption, fraud, tax evasion, sexual harassment or any other type of criminality;
Amendment 166 #
3. ‘abusive court proceedings against public participation’ mean court proceedings brought in relation to public participation that are alleged to be fully or partially unfounded and have as their main purposby the relevant judicial authority and which are suspected to mainly serve to prevent, restrict or penalize public participation. Indications of such a purpose can be:
Amendment 171 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point c
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point c
(c) a legitimate suspicion or proof that intimidation, harassment or threats on the part of the claimant or his or her representatives took part in relation to the subject of the claim.
Amendment 174 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1
Article 4 – paragraph 1
1. 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 a statement or engagement in public participation is accessible, via electronic or digital means, in more than one Member State
Amendment 175 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 2
Article 4 – paragraph 2
Amendment 176 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point a
Amendment 178 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point b
Amendment 179 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Member States shall ensure that when court proceedings are brought against natural or legal persons on account of their engagement in public participation on matters of public interest , those persons can apply for: