Tadeusz Zembrzuski

STRATEGIC LAWSUITS AGAINST PUBLIC PARTICIPATION – MEASURES OF PROTECTION AGAINST MANIFESTLY UNGROUNDED CLAIMS OR ABUSIVE LITIGATION. A POLISH PERSPECTIVE

Introduction

Strategic lawsuits against public participation – measures of protection against manifestly ungrounded claims or abusive litigation. A polish perspective. Explore SLAPPs in Poland, abusive litigation against public participation. Discusses EU Directive 2024/1069, safeguards for journalists & activists, and efforts to combat unfounded claims.

Abstract

Lawyers have been observing a growing number of SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) – lawsuits designed to trigger a freezing effect and intimidate individuals speaking out on socially essential topics – filed in Poland and multiple European countries. Individual states have been coming up against this negatively perceived phenomenon of corporations (businesses) with a strong market position bringing personal interest lawsuits against journalists, reporters, bloggers and/or activists. Cross-border cases are a particular challenge for defendant entities. Judicial proceedings are prolonged and costs aggregated, not to mention the forum shopping (beneficial jurisdiction choosing) practice. In all actuality, civil lawsuits (and, occasionally, indictments) are intended to prevent inconvenient witness accounts regarding assorted irregularities (including corruption) from reaching the public opinion. Attempts at resolving the issue have been made under Directive (EU) 2024/1069 of the European Parliament and of the Council of April 11th 2024. The law obliges Member States to provide defendants with a catalogue of safeguards: security, motions to dismiss manifestly unfounded claims, reimbursement of the costs of proceedings (charged to the plaintiff), and sanctions against plaintiffs initiating SLAPPs. While the Directive specifies minimum requirements, a standard higher than that guaranteed by the Directive can be applied. Poland is a European Union member state with a disquietingly high SLAPP count. It has been noted that SLAPPs are filed by business entities – a typically West European phenomenon – as well as by state administration authorities, with the use of the prosecution service and/or police force. Both civil and criminal law institutions are reached for. While the deadline for the implementation of the Directive remains distant (May 7th 2026), rigorous efforts have been made already to address the problem. The purpose of the paper is to discuss aforesaid efforts in a measure hopefully assisting the international debate designed to develop optimum solutions for European Union member states.

Review

This paper, titled 'STRATEGIC LAWSUITS AGAINST PUBLIC PARTICIPATION – MEASURES OF PROTECTION AGAINST MANIFESTLY UNGROUNDED CLAIMS OR ABUSIVE LITIGATION. A POLISH PERSPECTIVE,' addresses the critical and escalating issue of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs). The abstract effectively introduces SLAPPs as a tool for intimidation and silencing public discourse on socially vital topics, highlighting their growing prevalence not only in Poland but across Europe. The timely discussion is framed against the backdrop of the recently adopted Directive (EU) 2024/1069, which mandates Member States to implement robust safeguards for defendants. The paper's stated purpose, to discuss early protective efforts in Poland and contribute to the broader international debate on optimal solutions, immediately signals its significant relevance and potential impact. The abstract outlines a concerning landscape where corporations with strong market positions, and uniquely in Poland, even state administration authorities utilizing prosecutorial and police powers, employ both civil and criminal law institutions to stifle inconvenient disclosures, including those related to corruption. This adds a crucial dimension to the typical understanding of SLAPPs, which are often perceived as primarily corporate-driven. The paper promises to delve into the severe challenges faced by defendants, such as prolonged judicial proceedings, exorbitant costs, and the manipulative practice of forum shopping. The discussion of the Directive's minimum requirements – including security, dismissal motions for unfounded claims, cost reimbursement, and plaintiff sanctions – underscores the urgent need for robust protective mechanisms. Poland's "disquietingly high SLAPP count" and its specific context of state involvement make its early efforts to address the problem particularly valuable for informing the development of effective legal frameworks across the European Union. Overall, this paper appears to offer a highly pertinent and insightful analysis of SLAPPs from a distinct Polish viewpoint, while firmly situating it within the evolving European legal framework. Its focus on both corporate and state-actor SLAPPs provides a rich and nuanced perspective that can significantly enrich the ongoing international dialogue. By examining pre-emptive measures taken in Poland ahead of the Directive's implementation deadline, the research promises to offer practical insights and potentially serve as a model or cautionary tale for other Member States. This work is poised to make a valuable contribution to legal scholarship and policy-making aimed at protecting freedom of expression and ensuring judicial fairness in the face of abusive litigation.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.