Third 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 third meeting. This post continues with the report (Part II).
On 19 March 2026, the EAPIL Working Group on Anti-SLAPP Directive Transpositions held its third meeting, co-chaired by Birgit van Houtert and Marco Pasqua, who opened the session by welcoming the participants. As previously noted on this blog, the first meeting, dedicated to the work on the questionnaire for the analysis of national transpositions (reported here), and the second meeting (reported here and here), focused in particular on the implementation of Articles 16 and 17 of the Directive (EU) 2024/1069 (‘Anti-SLAPP Directive’).
The third meeting built on these earlier discussions and further explored the implementation of Articles 16 and 17 of the Anti-SLAPP Directive, as well as the early dismissal mechanism provided for in its Article 11. The discussion, structured around a case study, centred on two key aspects: first, the protection against proceedings and judgments originating from third countries; and second, the protection ensured through the early dismissal of manifestly unfounded claims. Contributions were provided by the Working Group members from Sweden and Belgium, and the discussion was conducted in an integrated format, with all Working Group members participating and engaging in a preliminary critical assessment of the mechanisms under consideration.
In light of the transposition deadline of 7 May 2026, the coming months will be crucial to assess whether the Anti-SLAPP Directive is implemented in a manner capable of ensuring effective protection for SLAPP targets across the European Union. An overview of the current state of transposition across Member States was also presented. A limited number of Member States – namely Ireland, Lithuania, Malta, Slovenia, Sweden, and, partially, Romania – have already adopted final transposition measures. Several others, including Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, are currently in the drafting phase. However, a significant number of Member States have not yet introduced any transposition measures, not even in draft form.
The Case Study
The discussion then turned to a case study, which served as a basis for identifying the key questions guiding the exchange.
An international non-governmental organisation brought proceedings before the court of a EU Member State against a U.S. company. The company had previously initiated litigation in the United States against the organisation and its U.S. affiliate, alleging that they had contributed to organising or amplifying protests against a major infrastructure project. The claims included allegations of operational disruption, reputational harm and financial losses, and sought very substantial damages, which the organisation characterised as typical SLAPP actions.
On this basis, four questions were identified to guide the discussion, to be addressed in light of the draft or final transposition of the Anti-SLAPP Directive in the respective Member States.
The first three questions involve this issue of bringing proceedings before the court of a EU Member State, in which the organisation seeks compensation for the damages and costs incurred as a result of the U.S. litigation.
In response to the questions, Marie Linton (Uppsala University), Working Group member for Sweden, presented the Swedish final transposition act, while Jachin Van Doninck (Vrije Universiteit Brussel), who presented for Belgium on the materials prepared together with Cédric Vanleenhove (Ghent University), both Working Group members for Belgium, contributed with the Belgian draft transposition act. These contributions then provided the basis for a broader discussion among all Working Group members.
1. On Which Criteria Would the Court Assess Whether the Case Concerns a SLAPP?
This question invites reflection on the criteria that national courts should apply in order to determine whether a given case qualifies as a SLAPP within the meaning of the Anti-SLAPP Directive.
As a preliminary matter, the Anti-SLAPP Directive applies to civil and commercial matters with cross-border implications, including interim and precautionary measures, regardless of the court or tribunal involved. It excludes, from the scope, revenue, customs and administrative matters, State liability for acts iure imperii, as well as criminal proceedings and arbitration. For the purposes of this assessment, the Anti-SLAPP Directive provides key definitions under Article 4, including: (i) “public participation”; (ii) “matter of public interest”; and (iii) “abusive court proceedings against public participation”, accompanied by an indicative list of relevant elements. By contrast, the notion of “manifestly unfounded claims” is not harmonised at EU level, leaving a discretion to national legal systems.
The discussion was opened by Marie Linton, who presented the framework under Section 1 of the Swedish Act on the Protection of Participation in Public Debate in Disputes with Cross-border Implications.
The Swedish Act applies to civil disputes in which settlement is permitted, concerns participation in public debate and has cross-border implications, but does not define “participation in public debate” or SLAPP. As the Act applies to cases capable of settlement, it is for the parties to plead that the claim constitutes a SLAPP, effectively setting the frame of the court proceedings, with guidance from preparatory materials referencing Articles 4(1) and 4(2) of the Anti-SLAPP Directive.
The discussion then moved on to the Belgian perspective, with Jachin Van Doninck taking the floor. The analysis focused on the transposition of the 2024 Anti-SLAPP Directive in Belgium, including the legislative proposal by opposition parties based on the Belgian Anti-SLAPP Working Group draft, the Council of State advice and the forthcoming government proposal.
The proposal would introduce Chapter XVII in Book IV of the Judicial Code (‘JC’) on “Specific Proceedings – protection of persons participating in public debate against manifestly unfounded legal claims or abusive proceedings”, defining public participation (Article 1385/1. § 1, 1° JC), matters of public interest (Article 1385/1. § 1, 2° JC) and abusive court proceedings against public participation (Article 1385/1. § 1, 3° JC) along the lines of the Anti-SLAPP Directive, and incorporating the Anti-SLAPP Directive’s indicative list in Article 1385/4 JC.
Following the presentations on the Swedish and Belgian approaches, the discussion on the first question – concerning the notion of SLAPP – was moderated by Marco Pasqua (Examiner, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart of Milan), Working Group co-Chair and member for Italy.
Francesca Maoli (San Raffaele University of Rome), Working Group member for Italy, took the floor and addressed two main aspects. First, she emphasised the importance of the duty of national courts to interpret domestic law in conformity with EU law. In this respect, even in the absence of explicit or detailed definitions in national transposition acts, courts are required to construe domestic provisions in light of the notions (where provided), wording and purpose of the Anti-SLAPP Directive, thereby ensuring its effectiveness. Second, she raised the issue of decisions rendered by third-country courts, questioning to what extent the qualification adopted by a foreign court could influence the assessment carried out by the court of an EU Member State. This raises the prospect of a renewed assessment under the domestic notion of SLAPP, and connects to the broader and delicate issue of whether, and to what extent, a review of the merits of judgments resulting from third country foreign proceedings may take place – a matter not yet harmonized at EU level and that was further revisited later in the meeting.
Marco Buzzoni (University of Luxembourg – Luxembourg Centre of European Law), Working Group member for France, then contributed the French perspective. He noted that the French transposition is still at a preliminary stage: the legislative process has only recently begun, and the draft is not yet publicly available, although some initial indications are emerging. The French approach appears, at this stage, to follow a model similar to the Swedish one, in that it may refrain from providing detailed definitions of the key notions. At the same time, Marco Buzzoni highlighted a crucial issue already under discussion within the Working Group, namely the possibility for the court seised to raise ex officio the SLAPP nature of the proceedings. While the Anti-SLAPP Directive, in several provisions, seems to place the initiative – at least as a minimum requirement under Article 3 – on the defendant to invoke the protective mechanisms, an express recognition of broad ex officio powers would arguably enhance the overall effectiveness of the Directive’s framework.
In concluding the discussion on this first question, Marco Pasqua underlined the central role played by definitions. Any restrictive approach at national level may affect the effectiveness of the Anti-SLAPP Directive in achieving its objectives. Therefore, the proper transposition technique on the point remains open to debate: while providing guidance – such as a non-exhaustive list, in line with Article 4(3) of the Anti-SLAPP Directive – may represent a viable solution, it is essential to preserve a broad margin of interpretation for national courts, which are key actors in ensuring effective protection against SLAPP.
2. On Which Grounds Would the Court Have Jurisdiction?
This question mainly involves the transposition of the special jurisdiction ground of Article 17(1) of the Anti-SLAPP Directive that requires Member States to ensure that, where abusive court proceedings against public participation have been brought by a claimant domiciled outside the EU in a third-country court against a person domiciled in a Member State, that person may seek, in the courts of the place where that person is domiciled, compensation for the damage and the costs incurred in connection with the third country-proceedings.
Marie Linton presented Section 7 of the Swedish Act that transposes this jurisdiction ground without the requirement of abusive proceedings; the mere fact that the action before the foreign court relates to the participation in public debate by the defendant domiciled in Sweden is sufficient.
Birgit van Houtert (Maastricht University), Working Group co-Chair and member for the Netherlands, moderating the discussion, pointed out that the lack of this requirement provides more protection to SLAPP-targets than Article 17(1) of the Anti-SLAPP Directive. Marie Linton clarified that according to Swedish law the requirement of abusive proceedings is regarded as a substantive issue and must therefore be decided on the merits of the case.
Moving forward, Jachin Van Doninck and Cedric Vanleenhove’s presentation showed that the Belgian government intends to transpose the special jurisdiction ground of Article 17(1) of the Anti-SLAPP Directive in the Belgian Code of Private International Law (CPIL). The Belgian government would opt for a special ground of jurisdiction, so there is no need to localize pure economic loss, as follows from the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union on Article 7(2) of the Brussels I bis Regulation, which would otherwise lead the court down a rabbit hole. The Belgian court must, however, stay its decision if the foreign proceedings are still pending (Article 1385/6, § 2 Judicial Code). Birgit van Houtert highlighted this as a concern regarding the effective protection of SLAPP targets, as SLAPP cases often take a considerable amount of time. In the same line, Marco Pasqua argued that this delay could even become part of the strategy of SLAPP claimants. Jachin Van Doninck agreed this is indeed a risk, noting that it is a means of exacerbating and exhausting a defendant abroad. Unlike the Green proposal and the proposal of the Belgian Working Group, the government would opt for this limitation.
Finally, Birgit van Houtert pointed out that the Swedish and Belgian Acts amount to a codification of the jurisdictional ground laid down in Article 17(1) of the Anti-SLAPP Directive, as reflected in the draft and final implementation legislation of other Member States, thereby enhancing legal certainty. In contrast, the Dutch draft transposition act does not envisage incorporating this ground of jurisdiction into domestic law, which risks leading courts into a rabbit hole of complex localisation of pure economic loss, ultimately failing to ensure the effective protection of SLAPP targets.
Marco Buzzoni noted that in France there is no indication that Article 17(1) of the Anti-SLAPP Directive will be transposed. He expressed his concern for the proper head of jurisdiction. According to case law, the exorbitant head of jurisdiction based on nationality does not cover procedures where the damage originates from foreign procedures.
In concluding the discussion on this question, Marco Pasqua emphasised that the issue of the applicable law in actions related to third-country proceedings remains equally crucial. In this respect, Recital 44 of the Anti-SLAPP Directive clarifies that the jurisdictional rule based on this special ground does not address questions of applicable law or substantive rules on damages as such. Consequently, determining the applicable law, as well as the scope and types of recoverable damages, remains a key and open issue in the overall framework.
The report continues in Part II, with the analysis of the protection against SLAPP judgments originating from third countries and addressing the anti-SLAPP safeguards provided through the early dismissal of manifestly unfounded claims.