Activities of Andrey SLABAKOV related to 2022/0117(COD)
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on the 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”)
Amendments (23)
Amendment 73 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) 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’), while safeguarding the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial against such natural and legal persons.
Amendment 79 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 5 a (new)
Recital 5 a (new)
(5 a) Journalists also bear an important responsibility to remain objective in the process of gathering and dissemination of information, as well as in their editorial process; this includes ensuring that journalism is free of political influences, undisclosed financial relations and targeted smear campaigns, or so-called "hit pieces"; guaranteeing high levels of transparency for journalists is, therefore, essential to having a well-informed society;
Amendment 81 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) 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.
Amendment 87 #
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, objective and unbiased 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.
Amendment 88 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 8 a (new)
Recital 8 a (new)
(8 a) A healthy civil society relies on an effective legal system, allowing natural and legal persons access to an effective ramedy and a fair trial, as set out in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; it is essential to ensure that the measures against SLAPPs set out in this Directive are not abused as a means to shield bad- faith and otherwise abusive practices by journalists and human rights defenders enacted under the guise of public participation;
Amendment 97 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 10
Recital 10
(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 beingThis does not represent 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 participationSLAPP cases.
Amendment 101 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 11
Recital 11
(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 b, possibly 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.
Amendment 103 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 13
Recital 13
(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.
Amendment 110 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 18
Recital 18
(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.
Amendment 118 #
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, for instance 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.
Amendment 127 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 27
Recital 27
(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. Such a stay in proceedings must not be applied in bad faith in order to delay proceedings, thus denying the claimant effective ramedy.
Amendment 128 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 29
Recital 29
(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 welllso 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 threaten the defendant.
Amendment 129 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 30
Recital 30
(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 thatthe procedure to prove that the claim is not manifestly unfounded should not put an unreasonable burden on the claimant in the main proceedings. Placing the burden of proof in relation to an early dismissal request solely on the claimant in the main proceedings and only needs to meet the much lower threshold ofrisks limiting the access to justice. Therefore, Member States should put in place safeguards, guaranteeing that the defendant has the burden of proof to showing that the claim is not manifestly unfounded in order to avoid an early dismissaland subject to early dismissal, as this threshold is much lower that the one in the main proceedings.
Amendment 134 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 31
Recital 31
(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. Fonly upon case by case review by the courts. Member States may consider, in accordance to their judicial systems, whether full compensation of damages shouldmay include both material and immaterial damages, such as physical and psychological harm.
Amendment 136 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 33
Recital 33
(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, and 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.
Amendment 160 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a
(a) public health, safety, the environment, climate or enjoyment of fundamental rights;
Amendment 167 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – introductory part
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – introductory part
3. ‘abusive court proceedings against public participation’ mean court proceedings brought in relation to public participation that are fully or partiallywhere there is an obvious or clear quality to the request being unfounded and have as their main purpose to prevent, restrict or penalize public participation. Indications of such a purpose can be:
Amendment 173 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 a (new)
Article 3 a (new)
Article 3 a Serious Harm A statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant. For the purposes of this section, harm to the reputation of a body that trades for profit is not “serious harm” unless it has caused or is likely to cause the body serious financial loss.
Amendment 188 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1
Article 7 – paragraph 1
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, the claimant or to provide information.
Amendment 189 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 1
Article 8 – paragraph 1
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. Adverse costs risk is one factor that may allow a party with an unmeritorious claim to stifle the free speech rights of a less pecunious opponent. Therefore, member states shall ensure robust costs protection mechanisms, both at the initial stage, and then more formally through costs protection where cases do proceed.
Amendment 193 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1
Article 9 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall empower courts and tribunals to adopt an early decision to dismiss, statuory early dismissal process, to strike out in full or in part, court proceedings against public participation as manifestly unfoundnd avoid lentgthy litigation. A set of criteria for the courts to determine whether a case should be classified as a strategic lawsuit against public participation and whether such a lawsiut is manifestly unfounded based on one or more of the common characteristics of such actions, in the form of a merit test shall be established.
Amendment 198 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 11
Article 11
Amendment 199 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – paragraph 1
Article 12 – paragraph 1
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 notthe defendant has the burden of making a prima facie case that a legal action against the defendant is manifestly unfounded.