Activities of Sabrina PIGNEDOLI related to 2021/2036(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
Strengthening democracy, media freedom and pluralism in the EU (debate)
Amendments (7)
Amendment 158 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Points out that SLAPPs constitute a misuse of Member States’ justice systems and legal frameworks, especially for successfully addressing ongoing common challenges outlined in the Justice Scoreboard, such as caseload administration and case backlogs; recalls that a properly functioning justice system delivers judgements without undue delay, and manages judicial resources so as to maximise efficiency, and that this is only possible where judges and judicial bodies are not burdened with the handling of claims that are later on dismissed as abusive and lacking in legal merit; calls on the Member States, in order to reduce the risk of abuse of process, shorten waiting times and reduce caseloads for prosecutors and/or courts, to introduce the option for judicial authorities to carry out a prior assessment of SLAPP cases in order to declare them inadmissible if they take the view that the legal action is manifestly unfounded or abusive; considers that such prior assessment could be based on objective criteria, such as the number and nature of lawsuits or actions brought by the claimant, the choice of jurisdiction and law applicable to the case, or the existence of a clear imbalance of power between the claimant and the defendant;
Amendment 198 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Stresses that SLAPPs are often meritless, frivolous or based on exaggerated claims, and that they are not initiated for the purposes of obtaining a favourable judicial outcome but rather only to intimidate, professionally discredit, harass, tire out, put psychological pressure on or consume the financial resources of journalists, academics, 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 can 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 206 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Points out that litigants that resort to SLAPPs use and abuse criminal defamation laws, civil lawsuits for libel, protection of one’s reputation - including so-called reputational damage - or based on intellectual property rights such as copyright, but also that a variety of other instruments is 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 233 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Regrets 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- in order to discourage and put an end to the use of SLAPPs in the Union - of taking an integrated approach that should include the adoption of the most ambitious legislative act possible and the promotion of measures to support the exchange of the best- practices currently in force which would discourage the use of SLAPPs in the Union; , to promote training for judicial authorities for the purpose of raising awareness among judges and prosecutors of SLAPP- related risks, to provide resources for the moral and financial support of SLAPP victims;
Amendment 245 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Agrees with the 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 amendmentsed in order to prevent ‘libel tourism’ or ‘forum shopping’; urgently calls for the introduction of a uniform choice of law rule for defamation by establishing that the court having jurisdiction and the law applicable to criminal or civil lawsuits concerning defamation, reputational damage and protection of an individual's reputation should be that of the place in which the defendant is habitually resident, 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 282 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13a. Is of the view that such legislation should also include a ban on searches of journalists' homes or offices in connection with their work and should fully protect journalists' professional secrecy with regard to their news sources, even where the disclosure of sources is the subject of indirect requests;
Amendment 284 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 b (new)
Paragraph 13 b (new)
13b. Considers it important for such a legislative measure to include also provisions, in the event of conviction, to protect the real estate of journalists in order to protect the interests of their families;