Media Defence has filed written submissions as a third-party intervener in two separate cases currently before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), each raising distinct but related questions about the use of strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) to suppress expression on matters of public interest.
The two interventions – in Meskhidze v. Georgia and Paučinac v. Serbia – advance submissions on the proper approach to SLAPP litigation under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), with reference to recent legislative developments in Europe as well as comparative law standards from a range of jurisdictions.
Case 1: Meskhidze v. Georgia
The first case concerns a woman who publicly alleged sexual harassment by a senior public official. Her allegations were substantiated by an independent investigation conducted by Georgia’s Public Defender’s Office. Notwithstanding that finding, the domestic courts held that she had defamed the official and ordered her to publicly retract her allegations.
Media Defence’s written comments address the serious chilling effect that defamation proceedings of this kind – brought even after an independent body has upheld the complainant’s account – can have on those who report sexual harassment and on the press that covers such allegations. The submissions draw on the Court’s own judgment in Allée v. France (2024), in which the Court found a violation of Article 10 arising from a defamation conviction following an allegation of sexual harassment, and held that the domestic courts had imposed an excessive burden of proof on the applicant.
The written comments also address comparative legal developments in the United States and Colombia which apply established doctrines on abuse of court proceedings.
Media Defence submits that the Council of Europe’s recent anti-SLAPP Recommendation provides the appropriate framework for assessing whether such proceedings constitute abusive litigation. Where – as in this case – allegations have been upheld by an independent authority and a defamation claim is nonetheless pursued, the Court is invited to consider whether the proceedings serve a genuine reputational interest or function, in substance, as a mechanism to suppress the account of the person who has spoken out.
Case 2: Paučinac v. Serbia
The second case concerns a civil society activist convicted of insulting public officials following a social media post. The same post gave rise to multiple separate legal proceedings initiated by one of those officials. The cumulative financial burden imposed on the applicant by those proceedings is reported to be far in excess of the fine imposed in the criminal case, illustrating how coordinated litigation – even where individual proceedings may be formally within legal bounds – can operate in practice as a tool of attrition and suppression.
Media Defence’s written comments argue that SLAPPs constitute a distinct and serious violation of Article 10 of the ECHR, and that the Court should provide concrete guidance to national courts on the criteria for identifying abusive litigation and on the positive measures that states are required to adopt to protect those who exercise their right to free expression on matters of public interest.
The submissions set out the salient features of a SLAPP – including the targeting of public interest speech, the abuse of laws and judicial procedures, the use of multiple coordinated proceedings arising from the same facts, the deliberate targeting of the most vulnerable potential defendant, and the exploitation of a power imbalance between parties – and address how these features, individually and in combination, can serve to identify abusive litigation even where individual claims have some apparent merit when considered in isolation.
The written comments also examine the range of procedural tools already available to national courts to address SLAPP litigation in the absence of dedicated legislation. These mechanisms permit early dismissal of unfounded or abusive claims.
For press requests please contact Media Defence Legal Director, Pádraig Hughes, at padraig.hughes@mediadefence.org
