Public critics in Germany increasingly face the threat of costly lawsuits designed not to win in court, but to silence them through financial and procedural burdens. Known as SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation), these legal actions target journalists, activists, and others who speak out, aiming to drain their resources and stifle debate.
The federal government has now drafted legislation to counter this trend, but during an expert hearing in the Bundestag’s legal affairs committee on Monday, opinions were sharply divided. Some specialists even questioned whether Germany has a systemic problem with such abusive litigation at all.
Representatives from the German Judges’ Association and the Federal Bar Association argued there is no urgent need for action. Dr. Christopher Sachse of the Judges’ Association noted that his Hamburg press chamber handles 600 to 800 cases annually, with none classified as clearly abusive in recent years. They contend that existing German law already provides effective safeguards.
However, media lawyers and civil rights organizations pushed back, highlighting a different, widespread issue: intimidation through pre-trial cease-and-desist letters. “In Germany, intimidation largely happens outside the courtroom, through warning letters with exorbitant threats,” explained Prof. Dr. Roger Mann, a specialist media lawyer. He said those targeted often sign injunctions out of fear, effectively muting public discussion.
Dr. Jessica Flint from an anti-SLAPP advisory service added that local journalists, bloggers, and small NGOs are particularly vulnerable, lacking the financial means to defend themselves against powerful corporations. Nina Noelle of Greenpeace Germany warned that organizations could be “litigated into bankruptcy” by protracted legal battles.
The government’s draft also limits protection to cases with a cross-border dimension, implementing an EU directive. This restriction has drawn criticism. Lawyer Joschka Selinger of the Society for Civil Rights argued that in the digital age, clearly distinguishing between national and international cases is nearly impossible, creating legal uncertainty.
While Federal Court of Justice judge Dr. Peter Allgauer praised the legislation for not exceeding EU requirements, he too criticized a procedural rule as too rigid. The draft mandates that courts must always examine whether a lawsuit against public statements is abusive from the outset, not just upon request.
The debate underscores a fundamental split: some experts view the SLAPP threat in Germany as manageable, while others see a real danger to free speech, primarily fueled by out-of-court pressure. Whether the proposed law offers the right solution remains contentious.
for the implementation of EU Directive 2024/1069 on the protection of persons who participate publicly from manifestly unfounded claims or abusive court proceedings
Der Bundestag
