Poland: Anti-SLAPP draft law is a positive step but key improvements essential

The Polish anti-SLAPP bill includes a number of important mechanisms that could effectively limit the abuse of legal proceedings against journalists and activists. However, lawmakers’ proposed criteria for applying key safeguards are too restrictive to be effective in practice – even in classic SLAPP cases – and do not take into account the realities of the Polish legal system. While the bill is a step in the right direction, we hope Polish lawmakers will take into account comments from civil society. This is a joint analysis by ARTICLE 19 Europe, the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights, and the Citizens Network Watchdog Poland (members of the Polish anti-SLAPP working group).

We present a joint legal analysis by ARTICLE 19 Europe, the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights, and the Civic Network Watchdog Poland – all members of the Polish anti-SLAPP working group.

Read the analysis

In January 2025, the Civil Law Codification Commission presented a draft law implementing the EU Directive 2024/1069 against SLAPPs – strategic lawsuits against public participation. They amended the draft in April. The Polish anti-SLAPP working group considers the draft bill a promising step toward better protection of journalists, activists, and others vulnerable to legal abuse for their public interest work. 

The draft includes several important provisions that go beyond the European Union minimum:

• Extension of the bill’s scope to domestic cases, which represent the majority of SLAPPs in Poland.
• An additional mechanism for terminating proceedings – not only through dismissal of manifestly unfounded claims (as foreseen by the directive), but also by rejecting claims as an abuse of procedural rights.
• Introduction of both financial penalties and the obligation to publish the operative part of the judgment at the claimant’s expense.

While the draft contains many promising measures, we want to emphasise that the way these provisions are formulated may render key safeguards ineffective in practice. In our view, if the law is to genuinely protect those who expose abuses of power from SLAPPs, it is essential to amend the project and strengthen the protective mechanisms to ensure the Polish anti-SLAPP law works effectively in practice.

Main concerns:

• Overly restrictive criteria for applying early dismissal mechanisms, which means they will not be effective in practice – even in classic SLAPP cases.
  • Reference to the ‘manifestly unfounded’ standard: for early dismissal of a lawsuit, the draft refers to a standard already used in civil procedure, which courts interpret very narrowly. There is no known case in which a court has considered a SLAPP-type claim to be manifestly unfounded. These claims are typically prepared by professional lawyers and are formally correct, thus not ‘manifestly unfounded’ in the courts’ interpretation.
  • Requirement of an exclusive purpose: the second mechanism in the draft (rejection for abuse of procedural rights) also sets a very high bar. The draft requires the sole purpose of the lawsuit to be suppressing public debate. The presence of any other stated purpose would prevent the provision from being applied.

• No special rules regarding the burden of proof:  the draft does not clearly require that the claimant must prove the merits of the case, as stipulated in the EU anti-SLAPP directive. In practice, general rules would apply, which in personal rights cases usually favour the claimant.

Additional concerns:

• No reference to the power imbalance between parties, which is often central in SLAPP cases.
• No ban on lawsuits by public authorities – state or local institutions would still be able to sue individuals for defamation.
• Risk of repeated lawsuits – there are no mechanisms to prevent refiling of claims dismissed as abuse of process.
• No specific provisions on compensation – SLAPP victims would need to pursue damages in separate proceedings.
• Too narrow criteria for non-governmental organisations (NGOs) to participate in SLAPP cases on the defendant’s side.
• No deadline for ruling on abuse-of-process claims, which could delay SLAPP case resolutions.

What do we need?

Only a comprehensive reform – encompassing both civil and criminal law – can effectively counter the use of legal proceedings to suppress public debate. Therefore, the Polish working group recommends the following changes:

• Clear and comprehensive criteria to identify SLAPPs, based on the Council of Europe Recommendation CM/Rec(2024)2, enabling courts to properly recognise such cases and apply available protections.
• Realistic conditions for early dismissal, reflecting the true nature of SLAPPs. Terms like ‘manifestly unfounded’ or ‘exclusive purpose’ may be too narrow and ultimately ineffective.
• Procedural efficiency, including clear deadlines for ruling on motions to dismiss at an early stage.
• Actual reversal of the burden of proof, requiring the claimant to demonstrate both reputational harm and its unlawful nature.
• Enabling compensation and redress to be sought within the SLAPP proceeding, without the need for separate litigation.
• Excluding the possibility of lawsuits by the State Treasury or local authorities in defamation cases – public institutions should not use the law to silence criticism.
• Combining civil law reforms with criminal law reform, especially the decriminalisation of defamation and insult – i.e., repealing Articles 212 and 216 of the Penal Code.
• Expanding the scope of Article 4 to include NGOs, whose statutory activities include the protection of human rights such as freedom of expression, access to information, and freedom of assembly.

Read the analysis

For media inquiries, please contact Katia Mierzejewska [email protected] 

Discover more about our work on SLAPPs across several EU member states and candidate countries, conducted as part of the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) consortium.