Group on Anti-SLAPP Directive Transpositions

Full denomination

EAPIL Working Group on Anti-SLAPP Directive Transpositions

Chairs and contacts

Birgit van Houtert (birgit.vanhoutert@maastrichtuniversity.nl) and Marco Pasqua (marco.pasqua@unicatt.it)

Type of group

Open Working Group with a limited number of participants from various EU Member States to ensure a broad and comparative approach

Current members

• Austria: Emeric Prévost
• Belgium: Cedric Vanleenhove, Jachin Van Doninck
• Bulgaria: Ilia Lassin, Dafina Sarbinova
• Croatia: Jura Golub, Ines Medić
• Cyprus: Nikitas E. Hatzimihail
• Czech Republic: Elisa Arietti, Eva Šišková
• Estonia: Anna-Riin Brett
• Finland: Onerva-Aulikki Suhonen
• France: Marco Buzzoni
• Germany: Susanne Lilian Gössl, Madeleine Petersen Weiner, Moses Wiepen
• Greece: Chrisoula Michailidou
• Hungary: Tamás Szabados
• Ireland: Norma Judge, Máire Ní Shúilleabháin
• Italy: Ilaria Aquironi, Francesca Maoli, Marco Pasqua (co-chair)
• Latvia: Aleksandrs Fillers
• Lithuania: Artur Doržinkevič, Ana Kiknadze
• Luxembourg: Carlos Santaló Goris
• Malta: Justin Borg-Barthet, Ioannis Revolidis
• Netherlands: Birgit van Houtert (co-chair)
• Poland: Maciej De Abgaro Zachariasiewicz, Edyta Figura-Góralczyk, Zuzanna Nowicka
• Portugal: Anabela Gonçalves, Afonso Patrão
• Romania: Elena Alina Oprea, Liviu Zidaru
• Slovakia: Lilla Garayova
• Slovenia: Jerca Kramberger-Škerl
• Spain: Maria Font Mas, Teresa Maria Martín
• Sweden: Marie Linton

Mission statement

The Working Group (WG) on Anti-SLAPP Directive Transpositions is focused on the analysis and promotion of the correct and effective implementation of Directive (EU) 2024/1069 across the Member States of the European Union. The Directive introduces safeguards against strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs), which pose a growing threat to freedom of expression and the rule of law. Particular attention is devoted to Articles 16 and 17, which introduce specific rules of private international law (PIL), as well as to other procedural provisions with PIL relevance. By fostering scholarly and practical dialogue, the WG aims to contribute to a consistent and coherent transposition of the Directive, enhancing the protection of democratic debate throughout the European legal space.

Challenges and aims

The WG is aware of the numerous challenges arising from the transposition of the Anti-SLAPP Directive, particularly in the context of cross-border litigation:

• National legal systems may differ significantly in how they handle abusive litigation and procedural safeguards.
• The introduction of PIL rules in a harmonization instrument of this kind is relatively novel, raising issues of interpretation and coordination with existing (EU and domestic) instruments.
• The time frame for implementation is tight, and domestic transpositions may be delayed or fragmented.

In light of these challenges, the aim of the WG is to:

• Monitor and critically assess national transposition acts.
• Facilitate the exchange of insights and best practices among experts from diverse legal traditions.
• Support the consistency of national implementations with the objectives of the Directive and with broader EU legal principles.
• Provide guidance and input to stakeholders, including national authorities and EU institutions.

Scope and approach

The activities of the WG will unfold in two main phases:

• Phase 1:
  • Review of draft national transposition acts.
  • Organization of a webinar or online workshop to engage with practitioners, national experts and civil society representatives.
  • Gathering feedback and identifying key areas of divergence or concern.
• Phase 2:
  • Circulation of a comparative questionnaire among the members of the WG, as national reporters.
  • Analysis of the final transposition measures adopted by the Member States.
  • Publication of a comparative report summarizing findings and offering recommendations.
  • Submission of the results to the European Commission and, where appropriate, national implementing bodies.

The WG is composed of members from a wide range of EU Member States, ensuring broad geographical and legal representation. While activities will primarily take place online, the WG will remain open to in-person collaboration and the involvement of external contributors when relevant to its mission.

Meetings of the Working Group

First meeting of the Working Group

On 27 June 2025, the first meeting of the WG was held online and co-chaired by Birgit van Houtert and Marco Pasqua. The co-Chairs opened the meeting by welcoming the participants and expressing their appreciation for the strong interest shown. The WG brings together 40 members from across the European Union. This diverse and truly EU-wide composition was underlined as a strength, enabling the WG to reflect a variety of legal traditions and practices in its analysis of the transposition processes. Following the welcome, the meeting proceeded with a round of brief self-introductions. This allowed everyone to gain a clearer sense of the WG’s composition and the breadth of expertise involved. The co-Chairs then provided a general overview of the WG’s planned activities and timeline, which will unfold over the next year and a half. Members contributed a variety of ideas and suggestions, enriching the discussion and helping to shape the direction of the Group’s future work. A core component of the meeting was the presentation of the draft questionnaire to guide the comparative analysis. The aim is to facilitate coherent and comparable national reporting on the implementation of the Directive’s private international law and related procedural provisions. After a concise walkthrough of each part, members were invited to comment on the structure and content of the questionnaire, with several useful suggestions shared during the discussion. The co-Chairs invited all participants to submit further written feedback so that the questionnaire can be finalized and circulated for use in the next phase of the project. The meeting concluded with a brief look ahead to the planned webinar to be held in the early autumn. The co-Chairs closed the meeting by thanking all participants for their engagement and thoughtful input, reiterating their appreciation for the collaborative spirit that characterizes the WG and their optimism for the work that lies ahead.

The full report of the first meeting is available here.

Second meeting of the Working Group

On 18 November 2025, the Working Group held its second online meeting to review the state of transposition of Articles 16 and 17 of Directive (EU) 2024/1069 (the “Anti-SLAPP Directive”). The session opened with a brief update on ongoing activities and confirmed the growing cooperation between the Working Group and the European Commission. It quickly emerged that the pace of transposition across Member States remains highly uneven: while a few countries have already adopted final measures, several others are still drafting national provisions, and in several Member States no legislative text has yet been made publicly available.

Against this backdrop, the first part of the meeting focused on a selection of Member States in order to compare approaches. The first approach adopted by some countries is to introduce specific provisions to transpose Articles 16 and 17 of the Anti-SLAPP Directive directly into their national frameworks. The second approach intends to rely on the general public-policy clause to address Article 16 while opting for a separate jurisdiction rule for Article 17. A third approach, followed so far only by the Netherlands, intends not to include any express provision at all, creating uncertainty as to the future operation and scope of these rules. This variety prompted a discussion on how to interpret national measures that are either limited to general clauses or that appear silent as to the Anti-SLAPP Directive’s requirements. Participants also noted that the main difficulties lie in the relationship between new provisions and existing procedural mechanisms, particularly regarding the interpretation of abusive or manifestly unfounded proceedings and the coherence with national procedural safeguards.

The open discussion that followed brought attention to the consequences of limited or non-specific transposition. Courts may lack clear guidance to assess abusive proceedings effectively, especially if the general public-policy clause is the only reference point available. Where Article 16 is expressly transposed, however, it tends to provide a more precise legal anchor, potentially reinforcing predictability and preventive effects. The group also reflected on the fact that, while only “abusive proceedings” are defined in the Anti-SLAPP Directive, the notion of “manifestly unfounded” remains open to interpretation by Member States, which could affect the uniform application.

The meeting concluded by emphasising the importance of monitoring legislative developments and maintaining constructive cooperation among Member States with a shared understanding that a continued dialogue across Member States remains crucial to ensure a coherent and effective transposition of the Anti-SLAPP Directive.

The full report of the second meeting is available here (Part I and Part II).

Third meeting of the Working Group

On 19 March 2026, the Working Group held its third online meeting, focused on key issues arising from the transpositions of the Anti-SLAPP Directive. Building on previous discussions, the meeting examined the protection against proceedings and judgments originating from third countries under Articles 16 and 17, as well as the protection ensured through the early dismissal of manifestly unfounded claims.

The discussion was structured around a case study involving litigation initiated in the United States against an NGO engaged in public participation, followed by proceedings brought before a court of an EU Member State. This scenario allowed participants to assess how national transposition measures address cross-border SLAPP situations.

A first set of exchanges concerned the criteria for identifying SLAPP cases. The discussion highlighted divergences among national approaches, notably between systems providing detailed statutory definitions and those relying on more open-textured frameworks. The role of national courts in interpreting domestic law consistently with the Anti-SLAPP Directive emerged as a central element to ensure effective protection.

The Working Group then examined the special jurisdiction ground under Article 17(1) of the Anti-SLAPP Directive, which enables defendants domiciled in the EU to seek compensation for damages arising from third-country proceedings. While some Member States have codified this ground, others have not, raising concerns about legal certainty and effectiveness. Particular attention was paid to procedural limitations, such as stays of proceedings, which may undermine timely protection.

The discussion further addressed the refusal of recognition and enforcement of third-country judgments under Article 16 of the Anti-SLAPP Directive. National approaches reveal significant diversity, reflecting the largely unharmonised nature of this area. The interaction between EU law, national procedural rules and fundamental rights was identified as a key aspect in assessing whether foreign judgments may be considered abusive or manifestly unfounded.

Finally, the meeting explored the early dismissal mechanism under Article 11 of the Anti-SLAPP Directive. While some legal systems already provide expedited procedures, others are introducing specific provisions. The discussion underscored the importance of timing and procedural efficiency, as delays may exacerbate the chilling effect of SLAPP litigation. Differences in timeframes, burden of proof and availability of appeals illustrate the variety of national solutions.

Overall, the meeting highlighted both convergence and fragmentation in the transposition process across Member States. With the transposition deadline approaching, ensuring effective and timely protection against SLAPPs remains a key challenge.

The full report of the third meeting is available here (Part I and Part II).

Updates at the 7 May 2026 Transposition Deadline

Following the transposition deadline of Directive (EU) 2024/1069 (“Anti-SLAPP Directive”) on 7 May 2026, the Working Group has continued to monitor and analyse the implementation measures adopted across the Member States.

Two overview posts published on the EAPIL blog provide an initial assessment of the state of play and the main challenges emerging from the national transpositions:

• Status of the Anti-SLAPP Directive Transpositions at the 7 May 2026 Deadline, available here;
• Challenges in the Anti-SLAPP Directive Transpositions at the 7 May 2026 Deadline, available here.

The Working Group will continue its comparative assessment of national measures and further develop its analysis in the forthcoming phases of the project.

Fourth meeting of the Working Group

On 4 June 2026, the Working Group held its fourth meeting, following the expiry of the transposition deadline of 7 May 2026. The meeting provided an opportunity to take stock of national implementation measures and to discuss the practical implications of the emerging transposition landscape across Member States, including those that have adopted final legislation, those with draft measures, and those still in the preparatory phase.

The discussion was structured around a case study involving an investigative journalist who brought proceedings in an EU Member State to recover damages arising from prior litigation initiated in a third country by a multinational company, characterised as a SLAPP.

Against this background, participants examined how national transposition measures address the identification of SLAPPs, including the criteria used to distinguish abusive proceedings and their potential extension to purely domestic contexts, as well as the limited or absent application to criminal proceedings in several countries.

The debate further addressed the jurisdictional basis for bringing compensation claims in the Member State of domicile for harm suffered in third-country proceedings, highlighting differences between Member States that have introduced specific rules and those relying on general private international law provisions or existing exorbitant jurisdictional bases, with consequent concerns regarding the effectiveness of the EU framework.

Attention was also given to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement of third-country judgments, which in the absence of specific transposition are largely grounded in domestic public policy clauses, and to the early dismissal mechanism for manifestly unfounded claims, including procedural differences in the allocation of the burden of proof and the speed of judicial response.

Overall, the meeting revealed a fragmented but evolving picture of implementation, with continuing uncertainty as to the full effectiveness and coherence of the Anti-SLAPP Directive’s protective mechanisms in cross-border SLAPP scenarios.

The full report of the fourth meeting is available here (Part I and Part II).

Panel on the Transposition of the Anti-SLAPP Directive (Tarragona, 30 June 2026)

On 30 June 2026, at the Universitat Rovira i Virgili in Tarragona, an international conference entitled “Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, Activism and Human Rights: Legal and Social Challenges in the Defense of the Environment” was held, organised within the framework of a research project on environmental strategic lawsuits against public participation. The event brought together interdisciplinary contributions on strategic lawsuits against public participation as a tool to restrict environmental and human rights activism and included a dedicated panel on the transposition of the Anti-SLAPP Directive from a private international law perspective.

In this panel, the co-Chairs of the Working Group presented a comparative overview of national implementation, based on the ongoing collective work of the Working Group. The presentation outlined preliminary findings on the main private international law dimensions of the Anti-SLAPP Directive, including scope of application, definitions and indicators of abusive proceedings, jurisdiction for damages arising from third-country proceedings, recognition and enforcement of third-country judgments and early dismissal mechanisms.

The co-Chairs then introduced selected contributions from Working Group members, who presented national perspectives on the transposition process in their respective countries, illustrating divergent legislative approaches and varying degrees of alignment with the Anti-SLAPP Directive’s model across Member States.

Overall, the discussion highlighted an emerging but fragmented landscape of implementation, with significant differences between legal systems in terms of both legislative technique and operational effectiveness of anti-strategic lawsuits against public participation safeguards.