An amendment that could affect the effectiveness of the draft law on combating abusive lawsuits against public participation (anti-SLAPP) was registered in Parliament on Monday, September 21. The initiative, signed by MP Artemie Cătănoi, a representative of the Party of Action and Solidarity (PAS), proposes removing the requirement for urgent examination of protection requests provided for under the anti-SLAPP mechanism, as well as maintaining Article 70 of the Contravention Code, which sanctions defamation. The Independent Journalism Center (IJC), together with other non-governmental organizations, calls on the legislature to reject the proposals contained in the amendment and “commit to adopting a coherent anti-SLAPP reform.”
According to the amendment, the MP proposes postponing the law’s entry into force from May 1, 2027, to January 1, 2028. Consequently, journalists, activists, and other people involved in public-interest debates would benefit from the safeguards designed to protect them against judicial intimidation eight months later.
According to the IJC statement, “the urgent examination of protection requests is essential to the effectiveness of the anti-SLAPP mechanism. Prolonging an abusive proceeding increases the pressure on the person targeted, including through legal defense costs and the uncertainty inherent in litigation. (…) We reiterate that maintaining Article 70 on defamation would keep in force a tool of pressure against the media, to which the civil procedural safeguards introduced through the anti-SLAPP reform do not apply.”
“We support the need to train judges, develop practical guidelines, and prepare institutions for the implementation of the law. However, the amendment does not provide a concrete timetable for the necessary measures and does not explain why these measures cannot be completed by May 1, 2027. Preparation should be carried out on the basis of a plan with clearly established responsibilities, deadlines, and resources,” the signatory organizations argue, insisting that “the fact that the proposals come from a representative of the parliamentary majority requires a clear position from the majority in support of effective reform.”
LEGAL EXPERT: “THE THREE PROPOSED INTERVENTIONS ARE REGRETTABLE”
Legal expert at the Independent Journalism Center, Cristina Durnea, says that the registration of the amendment “did not come as a surprise, given that, since the anti-SLAPP draft law first entered the public debate, all kinds of alarmist and inaccurate opinions have proliferated, including from the floor of Parliament.”
According to her, “the three proposed interventions (removing the urgent nature of the examination of the relevant requests, maintaining administrative liability for defamation, and postponing the law’s entry into force until January 1, 2028) are regrettable, especially when assessed as a package.”
“The capacity constraints of the judicial system and the need to protect reputation are legitimate concerns, but the arguments presented do not demonstrate that the proposed solutions are necessary and proportionate to these concerns,” the legal expert explains.
Cristina Durnea considers that removing the phrase “as a matter of urgency” from the anti-SLAPP mechanism is not justified by the reference, in the amendment’s reasoning, to the institution of securing a claim. She explains that interim measures intended to prevent harm or ensure the enforcement of a judgment serve a different purpose from the expedited examination of a request seeking protection against an abusive lawsuit. In her view, the problem of overburdened courts should be addressed through organizational measures and adequate resources, especially since “the early identification of manifestly unfounded claims can prevent the unnecessary consumption of judicial resources.”
Regarding the retention of Article 70 on defamation, the legal expert notes that the amendment’s reasoning starts from the need to protect honor, dignity, and reputation—an objective that “no one disputes.” The question, in her view, is whether maintaining the administrative mechanism is justified given the existence of civil remedies, which are acknowledged even in the amendment, and what safeguards are in place to prevent its use to intimidate people who address matters of public interest. She emphasizes that “repealing an administrative sanction does not amount to legitimizing the dissemination of false information, nor does it deprive a person of legal protection.” At the same time, a mere increase in the number of registered cases does not, in itself, demonstrate the effectiveness or necessity of the provision. To reach such a conclusion, data would be needed on the number of cases concluded with final sanctions, those discontinued, as well as the number of cases involving journalists, activists, or people who criticized the authorities. In the absence of such an analysis, the legal expert argues, the frequency with which a mechanism is used does not make it possible to establish whether it effectively protects rights or whether, in certain situations, it is used as a means of pressure.
Cristina Durnea also considers the proposal to postpone the law’s entry into force until January 1, 2028, problematic. She acknowledges the need to train judges, develop training materials, and adjust the regulatory framework, but emphasizes that invoking these arguments should be accompanied by a concrete assessment of the measures required, the responsibilities involved, and the deadlines. According to the legal expert, the amendment does not sufficiently explain why these activities would require precisely such a postponement and why they could not be completed within a shorter period.
“For people exposed to abusive proceedings, every month of delay means continuing to bear the costs and pressures without being able to benefit from the new safeguards,” the legal expert concludes.
Draft Law No. 268 on combating abusive lawsuits against public participation, examined and passed in the first reading on July 24, has been described by experts in the field as a legislative initiative necessary to protect journalists, media outlets, activists, human rights defenders, and other people involved in public-interest debates.
Previously, Media Azi explained in detail what the European Union’s standards are regarding the protection of public debate, what legislative gaps exist in the Republic of Moldova in this area, and what could change in practice once the legislation is amended.
READ ALSO: