Indicators of at least one level of risk from strategic lawsuits against public participation, known as SLAPPs, were identified in 171 of the 333 court rulings reviewed for the 2022–2026 period. Of these, 50 cases, representing 15% of the sample, were assessed as high risk.
The findings were made public on Friday by the Res Publica Center, during the presentation of the study “Freedom of expression in judicial practice 2022–2026: How the case law of the ECtHR is reflected by Albanian courts.” The authors are experts Dorian Matlija and Irena Dule.
Të lidhura
None found
In Albania, journalists and media organizations continue to face unfounded defamation lawsuits, known as SLAPPs. These proceedings are considered tools to intimidate them or push them toward self-censorship in the course of their work.
The material reviewed consists of 333 rulings in civil, criminal, administrative and constitutional matters, issued from 2022 through July 31 of this year. Journalists, media outlets or other actors involved in informing the public are parties in 190 rulings, or 57 percent of the total.
This percentage places the media at the top of the groups exposed to legal disputes over freedom of expression. Beyond this finding, the study examines how legal proceedings are used and the burden they may create, regardless of how the trial ends.
Regarding cases with SLAPP indicators, the report notes that defendants are asked to pay large sums of money, face multiple proceedings over the same publication and must endure lengthy procedures. These circumstances may encourage self-censorship even if the final ruling is in favor of the media.
However, classifying a case as potentially a SLAPP does not prove that the plaintiff intended to silence the journalist or stop the publication. According to the report, these are signals that must be examined on a case-by-case basis, weighing the nature of the conflict, the public interest, the measures sought and the impact of the proceedings on public participation.
Lawyer Dorian Matlija explained that, although there is no clear methodology for identifying SLAPP lawsuits, there are indicators that can serve as a basis for categorizing them.
He highlighted the use and intensity of lawsuits to impose a disproportionate burden on people reporting on issues of public interest. This assessment includes the large sums sought, the filing of multiple proceedings and delays lasting for years.
In their review of the rulings, the authors identified seven recurring patterns that may serve as warnings of SLAPP risk.
One of them is the demand for damages that are clearly greater than the specific harm established. In some cases, there is no clear reasoning linking the amount claimed to the actual consequences of the publication, the size of the audience, the duration of exposure or the defendant’s financial means.
The demand for several measures simultaneously against a media outlet or journalist is treated as a separate indicator. In addition to financial compensation, the claims may include a retraction, a public apology, publication of the court ruling, removal of the content and a ban on future publications. According to the report, judicial assessment should consider both each measure individually and the impact that all of them together have on freedom of expression.
Another problem concerns pursuing the same matter through criminal and civil proceedings, either simultaneously or alternatively. The need to defend oneself in more than one proceeding imposes financial, time-related and professional costs on the journalist, even when the proceedings do not result in a conviction.
The length of the trial ranks among the most important signals. The study identified proceedings lasting many years, including one case that continued for as long as 17 years.
Matlija pointed out that such a duration can hinder work and fuel self-censorship even when the media outlet prevails, because throughout this period the journalist bears the costs of defense, uncertainty and the continuing burden of the proceedings.
The authors emphasized that identifying a lawsuit as a SLAPP remains difficult even when the case is dismissed. Dismissal does not by itself prove abusive use of the lawsuit, but it may raise questions about the purpose of pursuing it, especially after proceedings have continued for years.
The report also addresses cases in which, before filing the lawsuit, the journalist or media outlet was not contacted for a correction, a right of reply or another less restrictive solution. The absence of such communication alone is not enough to define the lawsuit as a SLAPP, but it helps clarify the circumstances in which legal action was chosen.
Lawyers Dule and Matlija noted the absence of procedural mechanisms that would allow courts to identify, at the initial stage, lawsuits with possible SLAPP indicators and assess their impact on public participation.
In their final recommendations, the authors call for courts to apply Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights in a structured manner, as well as to take into account the combined consequences of measures imposed on journalists.
The High Court and the School of Magistrates are asked to contribute to clarifying jurisprudential standards and improving judges’ training on freedom of expression, the protection of sources and cases with SLAPP potential.
