September 2026
by Ileana Nicolescu and Denisa Drăgușin
In May 2025, in the article „The Anti-SLAPP Directive – the fight against the censorship of the press”[1], we analysed the European mechanism designed to protect journalists, media organisations, whistleblowers and, more generally, persons involved in the debate on matters of public interest. The instrument targets abusive court proceedings, meaning those actions which do not seek the legitimate enforcement of a right, but rather the discouragement, intimidation and exhaustion of those targeted, with the aim of silencing their public voice.
At that time, Directive (EU) 2024/1069 on protection against strategic lawsuits against public participation („Anti-SLAPP Directive”)[2] had already been adopted, and Romania was still at the transposition stage.
One year later, the legislative process is nearing its end. Draft Law PL-x no. 58/2026 on protection against manifestly unfounded claims or abusive court proceedings directed against persons who engage in public participation („Draft Law” or „Law”) was adopted on 8 September 2026 by the Romanian Senate[3], as decision-making Chamber, after the Chamber of Deputies had tacitly adopted it in April 2026 as a result of the expiry of the constitutional time limit.
The form adopted by Parliament essentially preserves the architecture of the draft analysed previously and transposes the safeguards laid down by the Anti-SLAPP Directive, while, in certain respects, providing additional safeguards compared with the minimum standard set by the Directive.
Against this background of public policy and legislative developments, an undeniable reality comes to the forefront: persons who engage in public participation frequently find themselves in a disadvantaged position, being easily exposed to court proceedings brought by actors who have the resources to intimidate and silence them.
The term assigned to these actions, SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation), is by no means accidental, suggestively evoking the English word ‘slap’ to highlight their coercive and chilling effect.
- Anti-SLAPP protection will also apply to disputes without cross-border implications
Most actions liable to produce an intimidating effect on persons who engage in public participation (for example, the press or NGOs) in Romania are, naturally, domestic disputes. In this context, the Romanian legislator’s choice to apply the anti-SLAPP mechanisms to domestic cases as well is one that will have a relevant and immediate echo. Under Article 1(4)-(5) of the adopted form of the Draft Law, a domestic case is one in which the parties are domiciled in Romania and all other relevant elements are located in Romania, whereas the Directive refers exclusively to civil or commercial disputes with cross-border implications.
Applying the safeguards in domestic cases as well makes use of the possibility, expressly recognised by Article 3 of the Directive, for Member States to adopt or maintain provisions that are more favourable to the protection of persons who engage in public participation. The solution is also in line with Commission Recommendation (EU) 2022/758 on protecting journalists and human rights defenders who engage in public participation from manifestly unfounded or abusive court proceedings, which encourages Member States to ensure the same safeguards in national disputes as well.
- The subjects covered by the Anti-SLAPP Law
As regards the definition of the core concepts, the adopted form largely follows the Directive.
„Public participation” includes statements and activities carried out in the exercise of the freedom of expression and information, of the freedom of the arts and sciences or of the freedom of assembly and association, including preparatory, supporting or assisting acts, provided that they concern a matter of public interest. The notion of a „matter of public interest” remains deliberately broad: from fundamental rights, health, safety, the environment and climate to the activities of public figures, official proceedings, allegations concerning criminal offences or administrative offences and the protection of democratic processes.
The Law also takes over the indicative criteria for identifying abusive court proceedings: the disproportionate or excessive nature of the claim(s), the multiplication of proceedings concerning the same matter, the intimidation or harassment of the defendant and the use in bad faith of procedural tactics, including the delaying of proceedings or the abusive choice of a more favourable court.
- The specific means of protection provided by the Anti-SLAPP Law
A. Bond (security)
The Draft Law, in the form adopted by Parliament, governs the procedure for ordering the claimant to post a bond intended both to cover the estimated procedural costs and to secure the payment of any damages. The application made by the defendant is decided without the summoning of participation of the parties, by means of a reasoned interlocutory ruling, which may be appealed within five days of its delivery. Failure to post the bond entails the stay of the proceedings.
B. Early dismissal of claims as manifestly unfounded
In order to transpose the central means of protection established by the Directive, namely the possibility of the early dismissal of manifestly unfounded claims, the Draft Law sets out a special procedure: the defendant may request early dismissal until the case is decided at first instance, and the application is dealt with as a matter of urgency. The text expressly provides that the burden falls on the claimant „to prove that the claim is not manifestly unfounded”.
This wording preserves one of the difficulties we already pointed out in our 2025 analysis. In terminological terms, the obligation to demonstrate that a claim „is not manifestly unfounded” may create the impression of a burden to prove a negative fact. In reality, a reading by reference to Article 12 of the Directive suggests that the mechanism should rather be understood as the claimant’s obligation to submit, within a short time limit, sufficient elements of fact and law, as well as evidence, in order to show that its action has a serious basis and may continue to be examined on the merits. Another aspect we noted previously and which has been retained in the Draft Law is that the claimant may challenge the decision granting early dismissal of the claim as manifestly unfounded, whereas the defendant is not afforded the same possibility, which may amount to an inequality in terms of procedural remedies, not provided for by the Directive.
C. Remedies against abusive court proceedings
For proceedings that are classified as abusive, the Draft Law establishes a second set of remedies.
The defendant may request that the claimant be ordered to pay damages for the material or moral harm caused, up until the opening of the debates on the merits of the case.
In addition, the court has the possibility of ordering the claimant to publish the judgment and may impose a judicial fine ranging from RON 10,000 to RON 100,000.
Compared with the more general wording of the Directive, which requires the existence of effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties or other equally effective measures, the Romanian legislator has therefore chosen to expressly name the available mechanisms and to set concrete limits for the penalties that may be imposed.
D. Judgments delivered in proceedings brought in third countries
The Law also transposes the mechanisms provided by the Directive for proceedings brought in third countries. On the one hand, the recognition or enforcement in Romania of a judgment delivered in a third country may be refused where the proceedings are manifestly unfounded or abusive within the meaning of the Anti-SLAPP Law. On the other hand, a person domiciled or established in Romania, targeted by abusive proceedings brought in a third country by a claimant from outside the European Union, may seek before the Romanian courts compensation for the harm suffered and the costs incurred.
E. The role of organisations and of the Romanian Ombudsman
As does the Directive, the Law allows associations, trade unions and other organisations or entities having a legitimate interest in defending persons who engage in public participation to support the defendant’s defence, with the latter’s consent, or to submit documents to the case file. This is an important mechanism, particularly for journalists or publications with sometimes limited resources, who may benefit from the expertise of organisations specialising in the protection of press freedom.
The Draft Law adopted by Parliament further confers on the Ombudsman (Avocatul Poporului) an important institutional role: collecting and publishing information on organisations providing support, taking part in information campaigns, becoming involved in the continuous professional training activities of judges and prosecutors, and drawing up an annual report in this field.
- Conclusions
From a practical perspective, the new regulation will represent a particularly useful instrument in disputes triggered by the involvement of persons in the debate or presentation of matters of public interest. We have in mind, first and foremost, investigative journalists and press publications, but also non-governmental organisations, activists, whistleblowers, researchers or citizens who speak publicly on topics concerning the community.
In such cases, the pressure exerted on these persons does not always stem from the prospect of an unfavourable outcome, but rather from the need to sustain lengthy litigation, with all the financial, human and time resources that this entails. The possibility of the early dismissal of manifestly unfounded claims, the security mechanism and the remedies applicable to abusive proceedings may significantly reduce this intimidating effect.
The effectiveness of these remedies will of course depend on how the new provisions are interpreted and applied by the national courts, but the existence of a dedicated procedural framework represents an important step forward for the effective protection of these persons against the use of court proceedings as a means of pressure or deterrence.
[1]https://www.juridice.ro/780918/directiva-anti-slapp-lupta-impotriva-cenzurarii-presei.html
[2]Directive (EU) 2024/1069 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 April 2024 on protecting persons who engage in public participation from manifestly unfounded claims or abusive court proceedings, available at the following link: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32024L1069.
[3]https://www.senat.ro/legis/PDF/2026/26L276FS.PDF?nocache=true