SLAPP vs. Mutual Trust: Protecting the Public Debate Through Public Policy Considerations

Abstract This Article argues that to protect public debate, which is vital for democratic societies, it is crucial for courts in EU Member States to apply the freedom of expression standards established by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) when adjudicating cases, particularly in the context of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs). The Article examines whether the obligation to protect the freedom of expression extends to the non-enforcement of judgments that could have a chilling effect on public debate, and explores the legal implications within the framework of the EU’s mutual recognition regime. By analyzing the Real Madrid v. Le Monde case, the Article highlights the importance of safeguarding free speech and public debate, praising the European Court of Justice (ECJ) for providing clear guidance on when non-enforcement is necessary to prevent the suppression of the public debate. The Article concludes by emphasizing the evolving role of the ECJ in balancing mutual trust among Member States with the protection of fundamental rights, especially in light of the EU’s ongoing integration and its potential accession to the ECtHR.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
German Law Journal
Published
2024-12-10
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2024.46
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Political Influence and Corporate Strategies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.55
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

SLAPP vs. Mutual Trust: Protecting the Public Debate Through Public Policy Considerations

Zuzanna Nowicka
1 citations
German Law Journal
Political Influence and Corporate Strategies
0.55
article

SLAPP vs. Mutual Trust: Protecting the Public Debate Through Public Policy Considerations

Zuzanna Nowicka
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Abstract This Article argues that to protect public debate, which is vital for democratic societies, it is crucial for courts in EU Member States to apply the freedom of expression standards established by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) when adjudicating cases, particularly in the context of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs). The Article examines whether the obligation to protect the freedom of expression extends to the non-enforcement of judgments that could have a chilling effect on public debate, and explores the legal implications within the framework of the EU’s mutual recognition regime. By analyzing the Real Madrid v. Le Monde case, the Article highlights the importance of safeguarding free speech and public debate, praising the European Court of Justice (ECJ) for providing clear guidance on when non-enforcement is necessary to prevent the suppression of the public debate. The Article concludes by emphasizing the evolving role of the ECJ in balancing mutual trust among Member States with the protection of fundamental rights, especially in light of the EU’s ongoing integration and its potential accession to the ECtHR.

German Law JournalVol. 26(4)
Jagiellonian University (PL)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 20%
Political Influence and Corporate Strategies
0.55
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.