SPECIAL COLLECTION OF THE CASE LAW ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION Key findings from analysis of selected court decisions This section examines how courts deal with SLAPP cases in the absence of specific legal protection against SLAPPs. The study is based on the analysis of 20 court decisions selected from the Global Freedom of Expression Database (GFoE).30 Although it is impossible to deduct global trends from this small sample, the cases were selected to show responses from different jurisdictions and legal systems. Courts are starting to explicitly recognise the concept and danger of SLAPPs In some cases reviewed for this study, the courts explicitly “qualified” cases as SLAPPs or made references to the concept of SLAPPs. l l l In its November 2021 decision in Palacio Urrutia and Others v. Ecuador,31 concerning criminal defamation charges brought by the then President of Ecuador against a national media outlet and journalists, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights for the first time in its history made a reference to the concept of SLAPPs. It recognised that the “recurrence of public officials resorting to judicial channels to file lawsuits for crimes of slander or insult, not with the objective of obtaining a rectification but to silence the criticisms made regarding their actions in the public sphere, constitutes a threat to freedom of expression”32 and stated that “these types of proceedings, known as “SLAPP” (strategic lawsuit against public participation), constitute an abusive use of judicial mechanisms that deserve regulation and control by the States, in order to protect the effective exercise of freedom of expression.”33 In the case of OOO Memo v. Russia,34 concerning civil defamation proceedings brought by a public body against an online media outlet devoted to the political and human rights situation in southern Russia, the European Court of Human Rights referred to “the growing awareness of the risks that court proceedings instituted with a view to limiting public participation bring for democracy” and highlighted the report of the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights “Time to take action against SLAPPs” of 27 October 2020.35 In the Delhi High Court’s 2009 decision in M/S. Crop Care Federation of India v. Rajasthan Patrika (PVT) LTD36 —a defamation lawsuit initiated against the newspaper and its editor by a group of businesses owners and shareholders of the pesticide industry—, it noted that the cases contained all the elements of a SLAPP. It stated that SLAPPs are lawsuits 30 In order to determine whether the case was a SLAPP case, we reviewed the type and profile of both plaintiffs and defendants and the power imbalance between them, legal grounds of claim, damages or sanctions sought and the context of the case. 31 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Palacio Urrutia v. Ecuador, 24 November 2021. The case summary of the decision by Global Freedom of Expression is available here. 32 Ibid., para 95. 33 Ibid. 34 European Court of Human Rights (European Court), OOO Memo v. Russia, App. No. 2840/10, 15 March 2022. 35 Ibid., para 43 in connection to para 23. The case summary of the decision by Global Freedom of Expression is available here. 36 Delhi High Court, M/S. Crop Care Federation of India v. Rajasthan Patrika (PVT) LTD, 27 November 2009. The case summary of the decision by Global Freedom of Expression is available here. 11