Politicians and government officials are the people who most often initiate legal proceedings against journalists. These cases are examined three times slower than all civil cases as a whole. The findings are contained in a study conducted by the Moldovan Legal Resources Center (CRJM), which analyzed the irrevocable court decisions issued in the last five years that concerned mass media and freedom of expression.
The study shows that two-thirds of the court actions directly attacked media institutions, and more than half of the plaintiffs are politicians or state officials, even though they are expected to be more tolerant towards criticism brought by the media. According to the research, more than 70% of the actions were rejected by the court, suggesting that the intention of the plaintiffs was, in fact, to intimidate and silence the journalists.
The authors of the research, who analyzed 37 irrevocable cases issued between January 1, 2019 and December 31, 2023, state that the application of national legislation by the courts is uniform. The judges clearly distinguished between facts and value judgments, recognized the applicant’s status as a public figure and emphasized that freedom of expression takes precedence over the right to defend honor and dignity, especially when the topics discussed are of public interest.
“Unfortunately, there are still cases in national jurisprudence that aimed to intimidate journalists and discourage public debate, a phenomenon internationally recognized as SLAPP lawsuits. Such initiatives, even if they are ultimately rejected, have a negative effect on journalists and media institutions, which have to bear legal costs, uncertainty, consumption of time and energy”, stated Andrei Nasu, CRJM legal advisor.
The legal research also includes an analysis of national and European legislation, underlining the importance of creating legal mechanisms to reduce the negative impact of abusive lawsuits against journalists, taking into account the mechanisms already established by European Union legislation and Council of Europe recommendations.
“One objective of this study, among others, was to examine how national legislation can integrate the European directives to protect journalists when they are targeted in abusive litigation. That’s why the research also includes a series of recommendations for several government institutions and civil society organizations dealing with mass media”, said CRJM president Ilie Chirtoacă.
The study emphasizes that, while the national legislation provides mechanisms to protect the freedom of expression of the media, these could be insufficient when the plaintiff is a person or organization with significant financial power and resources. General guarantees, state and stamp duty, are little effective against influential claimants, who can initiate multiple arduous, lengthy and demanding legal proceedings with the aim of intimidating and silencing inconvenient media organizations. Ill-intentioned people often seek to embroil journalists in a multitude of lawsuits, even if they are baseless and have no chance of success. Their purpose is to disperse the defendants’ energy and disrupt their work.
