The UNBA Committee highlighted the risks of the anti-SLAPP bill

Efforts to protect the public interest from judicial pressure should not lead to the dismantling of the fundamental principles of civil procedure. Therefore, the proposed mechanisms for countering strategic lawsuits against public participation require a conceptual review and alignment with current procedural legislation.

These conclusions were reached by the UNBA Committee on information policy and media relations following an analysis of the draft law «On the protection of persons engaged in public participation from manifestly unfounded claims or abuse of legal proceedings».

The draft was developed by a working group under the Verkhovna Rada Committee on freedom of speech, established to develop mechanisms to counter strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP).

The document proposes establishing safeguards to protect civic engagement and civic participants from the abuse of legal proceedings, regardless of the type of judicial process. It introduces the concepts of civic engagement, civic participant, matters of public interest, and the abuse of legal proceedings against civic engagement. The draft also provides for state protection of civic participants and their close relatives, access to legal aid, the involvement of the Verkhovna Rada Commissioner for Human Rights, specific rules regarding evidence, compensation for moral harm, out-of-court dispute resolution, the maintenance of court statistics, and the creation of a Unified State Register of cases involving the abuse of legal proceedings against civic participation.

Despite the stated goal of implementing European approaches to protecting freedom of speech, the bill contains provisions that could restrict the right of access to the courts, create conflicts with procedural law, and violate the principle of equality of the parties. Advocates have drawn attention to this. The UNBA Committee identified several systemic risks that make it impossible to adopt the bill in its current form.

One such risk is the overly broad definition of the term «public participant». The proposed model allows a wide range of individuals to claim this status. At the same time, the bill links special guarantees and support mechanisms — including access to free legal aid and the possibility of applying security measures — to this very status, which creates conditions for defendants themselves to manipulate the instruments of justice.

A separate concern relates to the mixing of institutions from different branches of law. The bill proposes taking into account the intent of the public participant when deciding on compensation for moral harm. The Committee notes that such an approach is inconsistent with the logic of civil liability, which is not limited solely to intentional forms of fault. An even greater inconsistency, in the advocates’ view, is the attempt to extend the scope of the law on the security of persons participating in criminal proceedings to parties in ordinary civil proceedings.

Another set of comments concerns the criteria by which the court must assess potential abuse of the judicial process. These include, in particular, «financial advantage», «political or social influence» or other imbalances in the parties’ positions. The Committee believes that such wording could grant the court excessive discretion and make the exercise of the right to judicial protection contingent on the plaintiff’s financial status or social standing. This would narrow the constitutionally guaranteed right to judicial protection of honor, dignity, and business reputation for individuals who have become targets of false information.

The Committee also drew attention to the proposed method of legislative regulation. The draft seeks to establish rules regarding the abuse of procedural rights, standards of proof, court costs, and the refund of court fees through a separate law. At the same time, such issues fall within the scope of procedural law and should be regulated in the relevant procedural codes.