Second Meeting of the EAPIL Working Group on Anti-SLAPP Directive Transpositions – Report (Part I)

This post was written by Birgit van Houtert and Marco Pasqua, co-Chairs of the EAPIL Working Group on Anti-SLAPP Directive Transpositions. It is the first part of a report on the Working Group’s second meeting. This post continues with the report (Part II).

On 18 November 2025, the EAPIL Working Group on Anti-SLAPP Directive Transpositions held its second online meeting, co-chaired by Birgit van Houtert and Marco Pasqua. The co-chairs opened the session by welcoming the participants and expressing appreciation for the continued collaboration with the representatives of the European Commission working on the transpositions of Directive (EU) 2024/1069 (‘Anti-SLAPP Directive’), namely Pia Lindholm (European Commission), Caterina D’Osualdo (European Commission) – who also attended the meeting – and Georg Haibach (European Commission). The Working Group’s activities are being developed in close contact with them, which greatly contributes to ensuring a constructive and coherent exchange between academic research and ongoing policy work at EU level.

The co-Chairs then gave an update on the progress of the Working Group since its establishment in March–April 2025. Following the first meeting held on 27 June 2025 and the finalisation of the research questionnaire in July, members have begun reviewing national draft transposition acts.

As of November 2025, the overall picture shows rather uneven progress across the EU with regard to the national transpositions of the Anti-SLAPP Directive. In green, only a small number of Member States have already adopted a final transposition act – namely Malta, and Romania, albeit only partially. In yellow, several Member States are currently in the drafting phase, including Belgium, Germany, Ireland, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Slovenia and Sweden. Finally, in red, a significant number of Member States have not yet made a transposition act available at this stage. This distribution highlights the existing disparity among Member States and demonstrates the importance of continued work in this field. This second meeting therefore served to take stock of preliminary findings, focusing on the current implementation of Articles 16 and 17 of the Anti-SLAPP Directive.

Articles 16 and 17 of the Anti-SLAPP Directive

Chapter 5 of the Anti-SLAPP Directive is devoted to protection against third-country judgments. It consists of two provisions: Article 16, concerning grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement of a third-country judgment, and Article 17, concerning jurisdiction for actions related to third-country proceedings.

According to Article 16 of the Anti-SLAPP Directive:

Member States shall ensure that the recognition and enforcement of a third-country judgment in court proceedings against public participation by a natural or legal person domiciled in a Member State is refused, if those proceedings are considered manifestly unfounded or abusive under the law of the Member State in which such recognition or enforcement is sought.

According to Article 17 of the Anti-SLAPP Directive:

1. Member States shall ensure that, where abusive court proceedings against public participation have been brought by a claimant domiciled outside the Union in a court or tribunal of a third-country against a natural or legal person domiciled in a Member State, that person may seek, in the courts or tribunals of the place where that person is domiciled, compensation for the damage and the costs incurred in connection with the proceedings before the court or tribunal of the third-country.

2. Member States may limit the exercise of jurisdiction under paragraph 1 while proceedings are still pending in the third-country.

The Transpositions of Articles 16 and 17 of the Anti-SLAPP Directive in EU Member States – Selection

The meeting then proceeded with the presentation, by the respective members of the Working Group, of the transpositions of Articles 16 and 17 of the Anti-SLAPP Directive in a selection of EU Member States, specifically Malta, Germany and Poland.

Malta

Ioannis Revolidis (University of Malta) reported that the transpositions of Articles 16 and 17 of the Anti-SLAPP Directive in Malta have been completed through L.N. 177 of 2024 – the Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation Order, 2024, amending the European Union Act (Cap. 460) – which is final.

Article 16 was transposed via Article 8 of L.N. 177 of 2024, requiring courts to ‘ensure that the recognition and enforcement of a third-country judgment in court proceedings against public participation by a person domiciled in a Member State is refused, if those proceedings are considered to be manifestly unfounded or abusive under this order’. Article 17 was transposed through Article 9 of L.N. 177 of 2024, for which ‘in cases where abusive court proceedings against public participation have been brought by a plaintiff domiciled outside the European Union in a court of a third-country against a person domiciled in Malta, that person may claim from the court compensation for the damages and the costs incurred in connection with the proceedings before the court of the third-country’; provided that if the case is still pending before a court of a third-country, the court shall stay proceedings until such court of the third country delivers its final judgement.

Ioannis Revolidis noted that L.N. 177 of 2024 refines the traditional refusal grounds under Article 827 Code of Organization and Civil Procedure by introducing a new ground under Article 8 L.N. 177 of 2024, previously unknown in Maltese law, while Article 9 L.N. 177 of 2024 directly implements the remedy provided in Article 17(1) of the Anti-SLAPP Directive. Overall, the transposition of Articles 16 and 17(1) is accurate.

At the same time, he highlighted some challenges: there may be overlaps between the new refusal ground and existing public policy provisions, as recent case law suggests, and the precise scope of the new ground may be difficult to define. In addition, the new ground of jurisdiction under Article 9 L.N. 177 of 2024 could enhance protection, but as the Maltese legislator made (mis)use of Article 17(2) its dependence on pending third-country proceedings and the generally slow pace of local courts might limit its practical effectiveness for SLAPP victims.

Germany

Susanne Lilian Gössl (University of Bonn) opened the presentation by reporting on the German transposition of Articles 16 and 17 of the Anti-SLAPP Directive – the German law implementing the Anti-SLAPP Directive is a draft and the legislative process is underway. The Working Group members for Germany reported by providing an English translation of the relevant provisions for the purposes of the meeting.

According to the draft law, the transposition of Article 16 does not lead to the introduction of a new rule in Germany; the general public policy exception under Section 328 of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO) on the recognition of foreign judgments is considered sufficient to refuse recognition and enforcement. This provision sets out specific grounds for refusal, including compatibility with fundamental principles of German law and fundamental rights (ordre public).

Regarding Article 17, the draft law introduces Section 23a, establishing a special place of jurisdiction for property claims arising from abusive proceedings targeting a person’s public participation. The court at the plaintiff’s general place of jurisdiction shall have jurisdiction over such claims, except for defendants domiciled in another EU Member State or in a State party to the Lugano Convention. The general place of jurisdiction is defined as the residence of the person (s. 13).

Madeleine Petersen Weiner (Higher Regional Court of Berlin) then continued the presentation, highlighting several critical points regarding the German draft. First, she emphasized that the definition of “abusive conduct” under s. 615 is particularly relevant for the study of transpositions under analysis, as it establishes that a legal dispute based on the defendant’s public participation is considered abusive if its main purpose is to prevent, restrict or sanction public participation and if the dispute pursues unfounded claims. “Public participation” is understood broadly, encompassing any statement or activity within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the Anti-SLAPP Directive. She also raised questions about whether the general public policy exception is sufficient to address certain scenarios, such as punitive damages or requirements to adopt others’ opinions. A key open question remains the relationship between the SLAPP-specific notion of public policy and the traditional understanding of the public policy exception in German law.

Poland

Maciej De Abgaro Zachariasiewicz (Kozminski University Law School) presented on the Polish draft law transposing the Anti-SLAPP Directive, based on a proposed English translation. The draft act takes the form of a separate statute, thus remaining outside the Polish Code of Civil Procedure (KPC), and the legislative process is currently underway.

With regard to Article 16, no change to existing legislation is proposed. In Poland, third-country judgments are recognized ex lege pursuant to Article 1145 KPC, while enforcement requires a court declaration of enforceability. Recognition or enforcement may be opposed on the basis of the public policy exception under Article 1146(1)(7) KPC, which also covers violations of fundamental procedural guarantees before the court of origin. According to the drafters, this general public policy exception is considered sufficient to achieve the results envisaged by Article 16.

As for Article 17, the draft provides that Polish courts shall have jurisdiction when the claimant has its domicile in Poland, if the proceedings initiated outside the EU were exclusively or mainly aimed at suppressing or harassing public debate. This corresponds to the notion of abusive proceedings against public participation. However, the implementation does not expressly refer to costs incurred in the foreign proceedings, but only to “compensation for harm sustained”. Article 17(2) of the Anti-SLAPP Directive is implemented by referring to legal disputes which “aim or aimed” at suppressing public debate, meaning that the Polish draft does not require pending proceedings for the remedy to apply.

From a critical standpoint, Maciej De Abgaro Zachariasiewicz noted that the decision to implement the Anti-SLAPP Directive through a separate statute, combined with only minor amendments to the KPC, may raise coherence issues within the Polish procedural framework. The introduction of a special jurisdiction rule outside the section of the KPC dedicated to international jurisdiction could lead to practical and interpretative challenges. Furthermore, several open questions remain: will courts interpret “harm” broadly enough to include costs incurred in foreign proceedings, especially where a success fee was granted to the abusive plaintiff? More broadly, given the absence of any legislative change with regard to Article 16, doubts persist as to whether the general public policy exception will be an effective tool to prevent the enforcement of manifestly unfounded or abusive SLAPP judgments from outside the EU, and whether Polish courts will interpret that exception in line with the objectives and scope of Article 16.

The report continues in Part II, dedicated to the open discussion and critical reflections emerging from the analysis.