How abusive lawsuits can silence environmental criticism
- Editorial Team SDG16
- 11 minutes ago
- 6 min read
Published on 21 August 2026 at 05:12 GMT
By Editorial Team SDG16
Strategic lawsuits against public participation, or SLAPPs, can turn the cost and duration of litigation into a deterrent against environmental scrutiny. Journalists, campaigners, researchers and community groups may face defamation or related claims after reporting pollution, questioning permits, opposing extraction or documenting harm. Even when a claim ultimately fails, legal fees, time away from work and uncertainty can suppress further reporting and discourage others from speaking.
The problem lies less in the formal label attached to a case than in how legal process is used. A claimant may allege defamation, privacy infringement, commercial harm, conspiracy or another recognised cause of action. The Council of Europe defines SLAPPs as legal actions threatened, initiated or pursued to harass or intimidate their target and to prevent, inhibit, restrict or penalise expression on matters of public interest. Its 2024 recommendation covers civil, administrative and criminal contexts.
Environmental disputes are especially exposed because public participation can affect projects with high financial and political stakes. A 2024 policy brief by the UN Special Rapporteur on human rights and the environment described businesses using lawsuits to distract critics and exhaust the limited resources of civil-society organisations, communities and environmental defenders. CASE's fourth annual report, published in January 2026, documents 1,303 SLAPPs since 2010, including 167 filed in 2024, across 43 European countries. The UN brief also cited 152 cases of SLAPPs or other judicial harassment tactics linked to the United States fossil-fuel industry from 2012 to 2022. These figures reflect the underlying studies' definitions and do not constitute a complete global count.
When a defamation claim is legitimate
Defamation law protects reputational interests. False factual allegations can cause serious damage to an individual's standing, employment or safety, and organisations can also have legally protected reputational interests. Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights permits restrictions on freedom of expression that are prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society for protecting the reputation or rights of others.
The European Court of Human Rights treats freedom of expression and protection of reputation as rights that may require balancing. Its Article 10 case-law distinguishes factual statements, which can be proved, from value judgements, whose truth cannot be demonstrated in the same way. It also considers whether a publication contributes to public debate, the status of the person criticised, how information was obtained and verified, and whether any sanction is proportionate.
A claim may be distinguished from abusive proceedings by whether it addresses a recognisable legal wrong, seeks a remedy proportionate to the alleged harm and allows the defendant to rely on applicable defences, including truth, honest opinion or public-interest publication where domestic law provides them. The subject matter, the claimant's power or the claim's eventual failure does not by itself establish that proceedings were abusive.
Signals of legal intimidation
Abuse is often visible through a combination of purpose, imbalance and procedure. The Council of Europe lists indicators including disproportionate damages or remedies, multiple or coordinated proceedings, intimidation before or during a case, exploitation of an economic power imbalance, abusive forum selection and delaying tactics. A claim may be partly founded yet still use an excessive demand or procedural burden to pursue an intimidating objective.
Early-dismissal systems therefore have to address both access to court and the risk that procedure itself causes harm. Environmental allegations may contain errors, and those affected retain access to court. Requiring a small newsroom or volunteer group to complete years of disclosure and trial before abuse is recognised, however, can leave the costs and duration of the process available as instruments of pressure.
Threats can have effects before a claim is filed. Demands for sweeping retractions, warnings of ruinous damages or repeated letters to journalists, funders and community representatives can raise the perceived cost of publication. Targets may remove material, avoid naming companies or stop investigating. Wider communities then lose information relevant to environmental decision-making.
The issue connects to SDG 16 (peace, justice and strong institutions) because access to justice and public access to information depend on courts remaining available for genuine disputes without becoming instruments for suppressing participation. In countries party to the Aarhus Convention, Article 3(8) creates a binding obligation to ensure that people exercising Convention rights are not penalised, persecuted or harassed for their involvement, according to the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe.
What anti-SLAPP reforms attempt to change
Reforms increasingly concentrate on the period before full trial. The European Union's Directive 2024/1069 requires procedural safeguards in civil matters with cross-border implications. These include security for estimated costs, early dismissal of manifestly unfounded claims, review of remedies sought in abusive proceedings, cost recovery, penalties or other effective measures, protection against certain third-country judgments, and assistance from eligible associations or other entities. At the 7 May 2026 deadline, only seven of the 26 participating member states - Cyprus, France, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Slovenia and Sweden - had adopted a final transposition act. Hungary had not started the process, while the Dutch draft implemented only the security-for-costs provision. Adoption did not necessarily amount to adequate implementation: CASE's monitor found that no country had fully implemented European anti-SLAPP standards and rated Malta as only partially implemented because its act covers cross-border SLAPPs alone. On 15 July 2026 the European Commission opened infringement proceedings, sending letters of formal notice to 14 member states for failing to notify their transposition measures; those states have two months to respond before the case can be taken further.
The cross-border limit is important because CASE records both parties in the same country in more than 90% of documented cases. The Directive's conception is broader than that narrow, party-location measure: a case involving parties in one country may still qualify where the public participation or matter of public interest has significance in more than one member state. CASE cautions that the available data cannot establish a fixed share of cases covered and that the broader test may not increase coverage significantly, leaving its practical reach an open question.
The directive separates two questions that are sometimes conflated. Early dismissal applies to claims that are manifestly unfounded, with the claimant bearing the burden of substantiating the claim. Other remedies address proceedings found abusive even where the claim is not wholly without foundation. That structure recognises that misuse can lie in excessive damages, repeated litigation or procedural tactics as well as in legal weakness.
The broader Council of Europe Recommendation CM/Rec(2024)2 is not binding, but extends the reform framework beyond cross-border civil litigation. It encourages early dismissal, case-management measures, limits on costs, compensation for damage and support for targets. Its wider scope includes domestic, criminal and administrative proceedings, reflecting the range of legal mechanisms that can burden public participation.
Early dismissal can reduce exposure to costs and disclosure, but its effect depends on the test, timing and allocation of proof. A narrowly drafted definition may exclude cases that use privacy, commercial or criminal law instead of defamation. A requirement to prove a claimant's subjective intention can also be difficult to meet before evidence has been exchanged. Conversely, an overly broad rule could delay a valid reputation claim with a second dispute about whether it is a SLAPP.
Cost rules are similarly consequential. Recovering reasonable legal costs can prevent a successful defence from becoming a financial loss, while security for costs may provide protection where recovery later appears doubtful. These measures remain dependent on accessible legal representation, judicial familiarity with public-interest speech and procedures fast enough to prevent attrition.
No procedural test eliminates the underlying tension between reputation and scrutiny. Anti-SLAPP law instead asks courts to examine proportionality and abuse earlier, before years of litigation produce damage that a final judgment may not reverse. The stated aim of these safeguards is to preserve a fair hearing for valid claims while limiting the use of litigation to make public participation unaffordable.
Further information
European Union — Directive (EU) 2024/1069 sets binding minimum safeguards for cross-border civil proceedings involving public participation.
Council of Europe — Recommendation CM/Rec(2024)2 defines SLAPPs, identifies indicators of abuse and outlines safeguards across civil, administrative and criminal contexts. https://rm.coe.int/recommandation-cmrec-2024-2-and-em-en-web-a4/1680b28211
UN Special Rapporteur on human rights and the environment — Policy Brief No. 6 documents litigation and other tactics used to intimidate environmental critics. https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/issues/environment/srenvironment/activities/policy-brief-no-6-devastating-impacts-businesses-r2he-20240131.pdf
European Court of Human Rights — Guide on Article 10 explains the balance between freedom of expression and protection of reputation in defamation cases. https://ks.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr-ks/guide_art_10_eng
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe — Aarhus Convention frequently asked questions explain the treaty obligation protecting environmental defenders from penalisation, persecution and harassment.
Coalition Against SLAPPs in Europe and Daphne Caruana Galizia Foundation — CASE Report 2025: SLAPPs in Europe - Democracy in the Dock documents 1,303 SLAPPs since 2010 and examines domestic and cross-border cases.
European Association of Private International Law — deadline overview records the status of national transposition measures on 7 May 2026.
European Anti-SLAPP Monitor — maintained by CASE and the European Centre for Press and Media Freedom, assesses implementation of European anti-SLAPP standards. https://slapp-monitor.eu/
