Gazeta Wyborcza is one of Poland’s largest and most influential daily newspapers, founded in 1989 as the first independent newspaper in the country after the fall of communism.
The newspaper is known for its independent investigative reporting, often exposing corruption and political scandals.
Between 2015 and 2020, its publisher, editor-in-chief and various journalists faced over 55 legal threats and lawsuits initiated by various state actors. By 2023, one of its long-time editors, Piotr Stasinski, estimated that the number had almost doubled. The lawsuits – mostly for defamation – concerned articles covering various public interest topics such as shady business dealings involving political leadership, the quality of COVID-19 facemasks purchased from China, the post-Communist reprivatisation fraud and so on.
Most of those cases bear the hallmarks of so-called “Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation” (SLAPPs), aimed at silencing the newspaper for exercising its public watchdog’s role.
Gazeta Wyborcza’s case is not an isolated one: a 2024 report by the Coalition Against SLAPPs in Europe (CASE) shows that while journalists remain the most likely target of SLAPPs, they are closely followed by media outlets, editors, activists and NGOs. SLAPPs’ tactics are also evolving beyond lawsuits and may include legal threats of costly and lengthy litigation, such as lawyers sending letters with injunctions to take down existing publications, refrain from publishing or even calls to disclose sources. Their ultimate purpose is to cause self-censorship for fear of retaliation.
On the plus side
It is not all black clouds, though: in May last year, the European Union’s “anti-SLAPP Directive” came into force as the first legally binding legislative instrument countering manifestly unfounded or abusive legal proceedings against persons engaging in public debate in the EU 27 Member States.
On the plus side, the Directive’s protection against SLAPPs includes not only journalists or activists, but also all activities assisting journalists’ work. This aspect should not be overlooked, because it stresses that anyone – be it an editor, a reporter, or even a source – plays a role in news production in the public interest and as such, can also be a victim of outlandish legal threats. In terms of protective measures, the Directive mandates the EU Member States to introduce or implement in their legal system the early dismissal of clearly unfounded lawsuits in legal proceedings.
This is crucial for the victims of SLAPPs because such proceedings may have an impact on their credibility, reputation, ongoing activities and finances, so the longer they last, the worse the damage.
he Directive also establishes the right of any natural or legal person harmed by a SLAPP to seek compensation from the plaintiff. The States are also invited to order the plaintiff of a SLAPP to pay all costs of the proceedings, including full representation costs, and to impose penalties or equivalent measures on SLAPPsters to deter them from further similar actions.
If properly implemented, these safeguards would also be a game changer, since SLAPPsters often rely on their more powerful financial or political position to initiate proceedings even when they know they are without merit and only want to drown the defendant in legal costs to ruin them economically and muzzle them for good.
Recognising the threat that SLAPPs pose to the public debate
As always, the Devil thrives in the details and there are drawbacks too: the most significant is that the Directive only applies to civil or commercial proceedings – not to criminal proceedings – that have a “cross-border” dimension: this means that the matter covered by the lawsuit must be relevant in more than one State (e.g., the news covered has implications in more than one State, its publication reaches out to an international audience, the plaintiff and defendant are not domiciled in the same State, etc.).
However, one positive aspect is that the Directive is meant to be a “minimum standard” for protection against SLAPPs and encourages Member States to extend their own protective measures to cover other types of proceedings and cases whose public interest is confined within their national boundaries.
Other international bodies – namely the Council of Europe and the UN – are also calling for States to grant broader protections, signalling growing recognition of the threat that SLAPPs pose to the public debate.
The fight against SLAPPs is far from over, but the introduction of the EU’s anti-SLAPP Directive marks a crucial step forward in protecting journalists, media outlets, and activists from abusive legal tactics and provides a much-needed legal shield.
However, its effectiveness will largely depend on how rigorously Member States will implement its provisions and go beyond its limitations by introducing robust legal protections. Otherwise, SLAPPs will continue to be used as a tool of intimidation, silencing critical voices and eroding public trust in media.
Journalists, media outlets and activists should welcome this challenge and join forces to closely watch how the new legal safeguards will translate into real-world protection.
Ultimately, defending media freedom is not just about laws and policies but a collective commitment from us all.
Guest blog written by Francesca Fanucci, Senior Legal Advisor at European Center For Not-For-Profit Law (ECNL) / Conference of INGOs of the Council of Europe (CINGO)
