Journalists, civil society organisations (CSOs) and other public watchdogs will now receive faster protection from Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs). Moldova has moved from general freedom-of-expression safeguards to a concrete anti-SLAPP reform. At its meeting on 22 July 2026, the Government approved draft no. 329/MJ/2026 and advanced it towards parliamentary examination. Lengthy, costly lawsuits can drain small newsrooms and discourage public-interest reporting even when claimants ultimately lose. For example, a local investigative outlet CU SENS faced six lawsuits linked to two investigations, and one claim was dismissed only in 2026, almost five years after publication. The new reform is a timely step forward, but no new protection applies until Parliament adopts the bill and it enters into force.
From EU commitment to a government-backed bill
The reform follows the EU Anti-SLAPP Directive (EU) 2024/1069 and the Council of Europe Recommendation CM/Rec(2024)2, both adopted in April 2024. The European Commission’s 2025 Moldova report recorded that national legislation had not yet been aligned with the EU acquis and European standards. Moldova then included the reform in its accession roadmaps and National Programme for Accession to the European Union 2025–2029, with a December 2027 deadline. The Ministry of Justice opened drafting on 11 February 2026, published a proposal for consultation from 07 to 30 April 2026 and revised it after consultation, compatibility review and anti-corruption expertise. Government approval converts that policy pledge into a bill ready for parliamentary scrutiny well ahead of the national deadline.
Concrete safeguards for journalists, CSOs and other public participants
The proposal amends five legal acts:
- Law on Freedom of Expression,
- Contravention Code,
- Law on State-Guaranteed Legal Aid,
- Law on State Fees; and
- Civil Procedure Code.
It would cover all domestic civil proceedings linked to public participation, rather than only the cross-border disputes covered by the EU Directive. Public participation includes expression, access to information, artistic and scientific activity, assembly, association and related action on matters of public interest. Courts would identify abuse through indicators including power imbalance, excessive claims, repeated proceedings, intimidation and bad-faith tactics. This broad reach matters for local media, CSOs, activists, researchers and community groups.
Three procedural tools form the core of the bill.
- Defendants could request security for costs and damage. A court could dismiss a manifestly unfounded claim before the hearing, give the claimant up to 15 days to respond, decide within one month and require the claimant to show that the case is not manifestly unfounded; the court could also act on its own motion.
- Targets could obtain costs and compensation; courts could impose a fine of MDL 1,000–250,000 (approximately EUR 50–12,500) and order publication of the decision.
- The package also covers abusive third-country proceedings, legal aid for early-dismissal requests, Ombudsperson information and statistics.
- Following the public consultation, the bill was revised to repeal Article 70 of the Contravention Code. If Parliament adopts the bill, defamation will no longer constitute a contravention under that article.
Moldovan investigations show that the burden often lies in the duration, expense and deterrent effect of proceedings, rather than only in an adverse judgment itself. Earlier reporting documented high-value claims and multi-year litigation affecting RISE Moldova, Ziarul de Gardă and others. A preliminary decision and evidential-burden shift could reduce the value of litigation as punishment. Its usefulness will depend on prompt judicial practice, affordable representation and consistent identification of abusive patterns, including where a powerful claimant files formally different actions against several reporters or organisations.
Strong alignment with European measures, with issues for Parliament to resolve
The bill closely follows the EU Directive and, in some respects, goes further by covering domestic cases and allowing assistance by associations and other third parties. However, the Council of Europe standard is broader: it addresses civil, administrative and criminal legal action and calls for training, awareness, support services and focal points. Moldova’s proposal excludes administrative and criminal proceedings, arbitration and civil claims examined within criminal cases. Its safeguards are mainly located in the Law on Freedom of Expression, despite also covering assembly, association, art and science. Parliament should ensure clear application beyond media cases and practical guidance for judges.
Full recovery of legal representation costs remains contested. The final text relies on the Civil Procedure Code standard of real, necessary and reasonable costs. The Government considers this consistent with the EU requirement to award full costs unless excessive; consultation participants argued for an explicit guarantee. Parliament should clarify and monitor the rule. A second gap concerns wider protection for human rights defenders. A civil-society appeal of 27 April 2026 stressed that anti-SLAPP rules do not address threats, harassment, disinformation or physical safety. The Government’s synthesis says these measures will be developed through a separate bill. That parallel track should have a public timetable and meaningful CSO participation.
Future of the law
Parliament should preserve the domestic scope and early-dismissal mechanism, clarify full cost recovery, and connect civil safeguards to training, support and protection against non-civil abuse. Under the approved text, the main protections would apply from 01 May 2027, while the obligation for justice authorities to collect and report data on anti-SLAPP cases would apply from 01 January 2028. Consultation with journalists, CSOs, human rights defenders and practitioners can turn the law into accessible remedy. Until adoption and effective implementation, abusive litigation remains a current risk to organisations or journalists who expose wrongdoings.