Journalists and media outlets in Albania continue to face unfounded defamation lawsuits, known as SLAPPs, which are considered lawsuits aimed at intimidating them or encouraging self-censorship in their work.
Of the 333 court decisions analyzed for the 2022–2026 period, 171 were found to contain indicators of the risk of strategic lawsuits against public participation, while 50 cases, representing 15% of the sample, were classified as high-risk SLAPP lawsuits.
Të lidhura
None found
The data were published 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,” prepared by experts Dorian Matlija and Irena Dule.
The study covers 333 civil, criminal, administrative and constitutional decisions from 2022 through July 31 of this year. Journalists, media outlets or other actors performing a public information function were involved in 190 of the decisions, or 57% of the total.
The data make the media the most exposed group among the parties identified in court disputes related to freedom of expression. But the importance of the study also lies in how these cases are used and what costs they may generate beyond the final outcome of the trial.
In cases considered to contain SLAPP indicators, the report notes that defendants face high financial claims, multiple lawsuits over the same publication and judicial delays that may produce self-censorship, even when the media outlet wins the case.
The report clarifies that classifying a case as having SLAPP potential does not prove that the plaintiff intended to silence the journalist or prevent publication.
It identifies indicators requiring individual assessment, taking into account the nature of the case, the public interest, the measures sought and the effect of the proceedings on public participation.
Attorney Dorian Matlija said that “there is no clear methodology for distinguishing SLAPP lawsuits, but there are several indicators that categorize these types of lawsuits.”
According to him, some of the indicators concern the manner and extent to which a lawsuit is used to create a disproportionate burden for those reporting on matters of public interest, including high financial claims, multiple proceedings and delays lasting several years. An analysis of the decisions identified seven recurring patterns that, according to the authors, may signal a SLAPP risk.
The first concerns claims for compensation in amounts that significantly exceed the quantified damage. In some cases, financial claims are not accompanied by a clear explanation of the connection between the amount sought and the actual consequences of the publication, the audience reached, the duration of the exposure or the defendant’s financial situation.
Another indicator is the combination of several measures against a journalist or media outlet. In addition to compensation, a retraction, a public apology, publication of the court decision, removal of the content and a ban on future publications may be sought. The report emphasizes that courts should assess not only each measure separately, but also their combined effect on freedom of expression.
The parallel or alternative use of criminal and civil proceedings over the same matter is also a concern. Even when it does not result in a conviction, the obligation to defend oneself in several proceedings may create financial, time-related and professional costs for the journalist.
One of the most significant indicators is the duration of the proceedings, while the study identifies cases lasting many years, including one that lasted up to 17 years.
“This may produce a chilling effect and self-censorship even when the case ends in favor of the media, as the journalist meanwhile faces the costs of defense, uncertainty and the ongoing burden of litigation,” Matlija said.
The report’s authors highlighted the difficulty of determining whether a lawsuit is a SLAPP even when the case is dismissed, an element that, according to them, does not automatically prove the abusive nature of the lawsuit but raises questions about the purpose of pursuing it, particularly when the proceedings have lasted for years.
Finally, the report mentions the absence of prior contact with the media outlet or journalist, such as a request for correction, a right of reply or another less restrictive solution. This indicator is not sufficient on its own to identify a SLAPP lawsuit, but it may help assess the context in which legal proceedings were chosen.
According to attorneys Dule and Matlija, procedural mechanisms are lacking that would enable courts to identify, at the outset, lawsuits with potential SLAPP indicators and assess their effect on public participation.
At the end of the study, the authors recommend that courts apply Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights in a structured manner and take into account the cumulative effect of measures against journalists.
The report is also addressed to the High Court and the School of Magistrates, calling for clarification of jurisprudential standards and stronger judicial training on freedom of expression, source protection and lawsuits with SLAPP potential. / BIRN
