Of 333 court decisions reviewed for the period 2022–2026, 171 showed indicators of at least some risk of strategic lawsuits against public participation, known as SLAPPs. Of these, 50 cases, representing 15% of the sample, were assessed as high risk.
The findings were released on Friday by the Res Publica Centre at the presentation of its study, “Freedom of expression in judicial practice 2022–2026: How Albanian courts reflect the case law of the European Court of Human Rights.” The study was written by experts Dorian Matlija and Irena Dule.
Të lidhura
None found
In Albania, journalists and media organisations continue to face unfounded defamation lawsuits known as SLAPPs. These proceedings are seen as a means of intimidating them or pushing them towards self-censorship in the course of their work.
The material reviewed comprises 333 decisions in civil, criminal, administrative and constitutional cases, issued from 2022 through July 31 of this year. Journalists, media outlets or others involved in informing the public feature in 190 decisions, or 57% of the total.
That proportion makes the media the group most exposed to legal disputes over freedom of expression. Beyond this finding, the study examines how proceedings are used and the burden they can create, regardless of the outcome.
In cases showing SLAPP indicators, the report notes that defendants face large financial claims, multiple proceedings over the same publication and lengthy procedures. These circumstances can encourage self-censorship even if the final ruling favours the media.
However, identifying a case as a potential SLAPP does not prove that the claimant intended to silence a journalist or prevent publication. According to the report, these are warning signs that must be examined case by case, weighing the nature of the dispute, the public interest, the measures sought and the proceedings’ impact on public participation.
Lawyer Dorian Matlija explained that although there is no clear methodology for identifying SLAPPs, there are indicators on which their classification can be based.
He highlighted the use and intensity of lawsuits to impose a disproportionate burden on people reporting on matters of public interest. That assessment takes into account the large sums sought, multiple proceedings and delays lasting years.
In reviewing the decisions, the authors identified seven recurring patterns that may serve as warnings of SLAPP risk.
One is a demand for damages clearly exceeding the harm demonstrated. In some cases, there is no clear reasoning linking the amount claimed to the publication’s actual consequences, the size of its audience, the length of exposure or the defendant’s financial means.
Seeking several remedies against a media outlet or journalist at once is treated as a separate indicator. Alongside financial compensation, claims may seek a retraction, a public apology, publication of the court’s decision, removal of content and a ban on future publications. According to the report, courts should assess both each measure individually and their combined impact on freedom of expression.
Another problem is pursuing the same matter through criminal and civil proceedings, either in parallel or as alternatives. Having to defend more than one case imposes financial, time and professional costs on a journalist, even when the proceedings result in no penalty.
The length of proceedings is among the most significant warning signs. The study found cases lasting many years, including one that reached 17 years.
Matlija noted that such a lengthy process can hinder work and fuel self-censorship even when the media ultimately wins, because throughout that time the journalist bears defence costs, uncertainty and the continuing strain of the case.
The authors stressed that identifying a lawsuit as a SLAPP remains difficult even when the case is dismissed. Dismissal does not in itself prove that a lawsuit was abusive, but it can raise questions about why it was pursued, especially after proceedings lasting years.
The report also examines cases in which the journalist or media outlet was not contacted before the lawsuit to request a correction, a right of reply or another less restrictive solution. The absence of such communication alone is not enough to classify a lawsuit as a SLAPP, but it helps clarify the circumstances in which litigation was chosen.
Lawyers Dule and Matlija found a lack of procedural mechanisms that would allow courts to identify lawsuits with potential SLAPP indicators at an early stage and assess their impact on public participation.
In their concluding recommendations, the authors call for courts to apply Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights in a structured way and to consider the combined consequences of measures imposed on journalists.
The Supreme Court and the School of Magistrates are urged to help clarify case-law standards and improve judicial training on freedom of expression, protection of sources and cases with SLAPP potential.
