The anti-SLAPP directive, which was proposed by the EU Council, is too "conservative" and goes against the European Commission's original proposal, informally called "Daphne's Law", member of the European Parliament David Casa said.

"Currently, the situation in several member states, including Malta, is unfairly balanced toward plaintiffs with deep pockets," Casa said.

The objective of a strategic or abusive lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) is not to redress the plaintiff's breached legal rights but to intimidate and harass the target into silence. A report released by the Coalition Against SLAPPs in Europe (CASE) shows that Malta has the highest number of SLAPP cases per capita in Europe.

The EU Council agreed on a proposal against SLAPPs on 9 June, with the intention of protecting journalists against any abusive legal proceedings carried out by people who would want to intimidate and silence the journalist.

The Council's proposed directive, however, has been heavily criticised by the European Federation of Journalists (EFJ), which said that it adopted a "watered-down" position on the anti-SLAPP directive that was proposed by the European Commission in April 2022.

The European Parliament is due to adopt its opinion on 27 June before the three institutions begin trilogue negotiations.

A media reform, involving anti-SLAPP legislation, was tabled in Malta's Parliament by the government last year. Controversy ensued over the lack of consultation regarding the government bills, and eventually, the prime minister agreed to send the proposed pieces of legislation back to the expert committee it had appointed for a public consultation to be held.

The Malta Independent on Sunday contacted all Maltese MEPs to get their comments on the directive the EU Council proposed and for their opinion as to whether this will be enough to defend journalists against abusive proceedings. Only Casa and MEP Alfred Sant responded.

When asked about the Council's proposed directive, Casa mentioned that he and his colleagues have been campaigning for stronger protection for journalists since 2018.

"This is something I could do as co-chair of the Media Working Group of the European Parliament, where we regularly held stakeholder meetings with international press organisations and the European Commission."

"When Vice President Jourova and Commissioner Reynders published 'Daphne's Law', the proposal for the anti-SLAPP directive, we pledged to ensure that the Parliament's position would reflect the ambition in the proposal."

Although he did not agree with the EU Council's directive, he noted that they are at the early stage of the legislative process, and moving forward, Casa intends to continue "lobbying to maintain the Commission's ambition".

"I want the Parliament to be on a very strong footing during the eventual trilogue negotiations. And this is something we will continue striving towards over the next months."

Talking about the main issues with the Council's proposals, Casa said that he "disagreed that the Council's position strikes the right balance," as, he said, it focuses a lot on restricting cross-border cases without focusing on other elements to prevent SLAPPs.

Suing abroad or threatening to sue abroad can be considered an abusive proceeding as it could be used as a way to drown journalists with legal expenses.

"We want the provisions to encapsulate as many cases of SLAPPs as possible. This means retaining a wide interpretation of what the 'cross-border' element means."

Casa expressed his disappointment as the directive "[narrows] the meaning of 'abusive' proceedings and [restricts] the early dismissal mechanisms, which is one of the most important components of the file".

"Currently, they can abuse the law to file multiple court proceedings or shop around for the most expensive jurisdiction. Journalists are already at an economic disadvantage and more likely to be financially unable to fend off such cases, domestically or abroad, putting them at risk of being silenced despite them having broken no law in the first place."

Asked about the government's proposed media reform, Casa pointed out that in October last year, the European Parliament voted overwhelmingly in favour of a resolution that slammed the government for going ahead with a proposal which was not consulted by all stakeholders. "The Maltese government has time and time again proved it is no friend of the press."

"The government claimed that it took on board most of the recommendations that international organisations made over the years. But the most important ones were left out. Rather than adopt the Commission's recommendation from the same year, the government ploughed ahead with a smokescreen that does not meet international standards, nor does it include an effective early dismissal mechanism. Its proposal would still cause journalists to pay damages in Malta for foreign judgments and creates a very vague and restrictive test to refuse enforcement."

He said that comments made in Council are "undoubtedly meant to save face" and added that Malta can "never have any credibility on this subject" until it implements the recommendations made in the Caruana Galizia's inquiry.

Alfred Sant made it very clear that there should be a mechanism that protects journalists, however, he questioned the way the anti-SLAPP initiative is referenced.

To give an example, he mentioned and questioned whether the 43 libel suits that Caruana Galizia was facing, were all SLAPP suits. "But were all these relevant to anti-SLAPP issues? I do not think so."

"Surely there has to be protection for journalists, but also for the victims of personal attacks in the media veiled as journalistic reporting."

Sant added that there needs to be a clear definition of who qualifies as a journalist, otherwise, "media reporting could degenerate into a jungle sport".

"And redress at the courts against libellous/slanderous exercises in the media, no matter who does them, needs to be maintained so long as the facts about them are proven and the remedies kept proportionate and transparent."