SPECIAL COLLECTION OF THE CASE LAW ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION European Court had the opportunity to review the case and found a violation of Article 10 of the European Convention.120 ● In Concita Di Gregorio and Claudia Fusani v Maria Mangano, it took more than six years of litigation for the editor of L’Unita, Concita Di Gregorio, to be acquitted of a criminal defamation SLAPP suit. The proceedings started in 2010 and the decision of the Supreme Court of Italy, recognising the correct exercise of the right to inform and criticise on judicial matters of public concern, was issued only in January 2017. This decision was preceded by the June 2015 ruling of the Court of Appeal of Catania which upheld a negative decision against the defendants, issued by a first instance court in 2012.121 This case is particularly emblematic because in addition to this SLAPP suit, Di Gregorio faced fifty-three judicial proceedings for defamation between 2011 to 2018, a judicial, professional and personal burden that puts at risk the sustainability of this type of media. Lawsuits initiated against Di Gregorio were mainly lodged by right wing politicians as well as media and communication companies (e.g., MEDIASET, Silvio Berlusconi’s media and communication company, and the second biggest television broadcaster after Radiotelevisione Italiana (RAI)).122 Courts are/are not granting costs of litigation to victims of SLAPPs Courts’ orders to pay litigation costs to victims of SLAPPs are inconsistent across jurisdictions. Some courts are granting costs once they recognise the claim as a SLAPP or issue decisions in favour of SLAPPs’ victims: ● Litigation costs were granted to the defendants in Mineral Sands Resources (Pty) Ltd and Others v Reddell and Others and Koko v Tanton. In the former, the Constitutional Court of South Africa ordered those who initiated SLAPPs to pay 60% of the respondents’ costs in the Constitutional Court’s proceeding, including the costs of two counsels.123 It determined that defendants deserved a reimbursement of a part of their costs as their success in securing the dismissal of the SLAPP case was substantial.124 However, the Court decided that each party should pay its own costs in relation to the proceeding before the Western Cape the High Court as each party succeeded in their claims and exceptions.125 The Johannesburg High Court in South Africa took a different approach in Koko v Tanton. First, it ordered the plaintiff (who initiated the SLAPP case) to pay the costs of the defendant as the case lacked merits.126 The Court relied on Rule 6(15) of the Uniform Rules of Court which allows courts to order the payment of costs when “an application order to be 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 Ibid., para 50. Court of Cassation, op. cit., ps 1-3. See summary of the case of Global Freedom of Expression database, Columbia University Constitutional Court of South Africa, op. cit., p. 2. Ibid., para 102. Ibid. High Court of South Africa, Gauteng Local Division, Johannesburg, op. cit., para 21 in connection with 19 & 20. 23