SPECIAL COLLECTION OF THE CASE LAW ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION Introduction The increase of cases of strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) is a growing concern for human rights bodies, the media, and civil society around the world. SLAPPs are a form of abusive litigation that intimidate and harass journalists, media outlets, protesters, or environmental and human rights defenders. These lawsuits are typically initiated by politicians, public officials, wealthy businesspeople, big companies, and public figures aiming to silence critical voices and stifle scrutiny and public debate. Rather than seeking to obtain a favourable decision and compensations, the aim of SLAPPs is to drain defendants in lengthy and expensive judicial processes. Those targeted by such costly legal proceedings are often ill-equipped to defend themselves and are targets of other forms of intimidation tactics. SLAPPs thus have a chilling effect on those critical of governments, public institutions, and other powerful actors. Studies show that the increase and scale of SLAPPs is a global phenomenon. For instance, the report of the Business and Human Rights Resource Centre (BHRS), examining 355 SLAPP cases, found that 73% of cases were brought in countries in the Global South, including in Latin America (39%), Asia Pacific (25%), Europe and Central Asia (18%), Africa (8.5%) and North America (9%).1 The danger of SLAPPs and their impact on journalists, human rights defenders, and the media have been also widely documented. ARTICLE 19’s 2021 report on SLAPPs in 11 EU countries showed how SLAPPs are being initiated in nearly every country under the review and how they pose a threat not only to fundamental rights but also to media freedom and transparency.2 In Latin America, a recent study about legal harassment against journalists and human rights defenders in Mexico and Colombia shows how SLAPPs happen in the context of numerous other attacks on journalists; in particular, physical violence against journalists and human rights defenders and broader discrediting campaigns.3 To respond to the dangers posed by SLAPPs, some states (in particular the USA and Canada) have adopted dedicated anti-SLAPP legislation. In general, anti-SLAPP statutes allow courts to assess if a claim is against activity in the public interest, examine if there is evidence of abuse of process, and review whether the case has sufficient merit – specifically if it has a realistic prospect of success. Anti-SLAPP statutes allow a motion to dismiss cases early on in public interest claims, which saves time and money, protects speech, and prevents a chilling effect on expression. International and regional mechanisms are also starting to highlight the need to introduce stronger protection against SLAPPs in law and in practice. In 2020, the European Commission launched the Anti-SLAPP Initiative with the aim to adopt an anti-SLAPP directive.4 The Council of Europe also put forward recommendations on the protection of journalists and other public watchdogs to the Member States in 2022.5 The Special Rapporteurs on Freedom of Expression 1 Business and Human Rights Centre, SLAPP but not silenced, Defending Human Rights in the face of legal risks, June 2021. 2 ARTICLE 19, SLAPPs against journalists across Europe, Media Freedom Response, March 2022; and ARTICLE 19, American Bar Association and Independent Journalists’ Association of Serbia (NUNS), State of SLAPPs in Serbia, Country report, December 2021; and ARTICLE 19, State of SLAPPs in Spain, country report, November 2021. 3 ARTICLE 19, FLIP and Justice for Journalists, Laws to Silences, Judicial Harassment against the freedom of expression in Mexico and Colombia, 2021. 4 European Commission, EU action against abusive litigation (SLAPP) targeting journalists and rights defenders. 5 The Council of Europe, MSI-SLP Committee of Experts on Strategic Lawsuits against Public Participation. 6