On 24 July 2026, the Parliament of the Republic of Moldova examined and approved, at first reading, Draft Law No. 268 on combating abusive legal proceedings against public mobilisation.
The Independent Journalism Centre, together with the co-signing media non-governmental organisations, welcomes the progress of this legislative initiative, which is necessary to protect journalists, media organisations, activists, human rights defenders and others involved in debates of public interest. At the same time, we express our concern regarding certain inaccurate statements and erroneous interpretations made by some MPs during the plenary session, particularly concerning the implementation of anti-SLAPP mechanisms in EU Member States, the content of the draft law and the proposal to repeal Article 70 of the Code of Administrative Offences, which penalises defamation.
Parliamentary debates and the critical scrutiny of draft legislation are indispensable in a democratic state. However, the views expressed from the parliamentary rostrum must be based on verified information and a faithful interpretation of the provisions under discussion. Inaccurate statements made by some MPs may mislead public opinion, distort the purpose of the reform and pave the way for the watering down of essential safeguards ahead of the bill’s final reading.
These include a series of statements made by MP Dinu Plîngău. During the parliamentary debates, he repeatedly claimed that Directive (EU) 2024/1069 had been implemented ‘only by Malta’ and that no other state had adopted such mechanisms, suggesting that the transposition of the anti-SLAPP Directive into Moldovan law would be premature. The data available at the time of the draft’s examination refute this claim. By 24 July 2026, at least 13 EU Member States had adopted anti-SLAPP legislative measures (see the official EUR-Lex database on national transposition measures and the European Anti-SLAPP Monitor).
Equally erroneous is the MP’s assertion that the entire purpose of the anti-SLAPP draft bill boils down to the abolition of administrative liability for defamation. The draft introduces a set of procedural safeguards and remedies, including the possibility of the swift dismissal of manifestly unfounded claims; the priority examination of applications for protection; compensation for damage caused by abusive proceedings; and so on. The repeal of the administrative offence of defamation is a complementary but indispensable component of the reform. Retaining it would allow anti-SLAPP safeguards to be circumvented simply by reporting the matter to the police and initiating administrative proceedings against journalists or human rights defenders.
The rules on bail and the burden of proof in early dismissal proceedings were also misrepresented, with the suggestion that these mechanisms would automatically apply in all civil proceedings concerning the defence of honour, dignity, reputation or privacy. In reality, they are special safeguards, applicable only under the conditions expressly provided for by law in cases relating to public mobilisation.
We would point out that the repeal of Article 70 does not remove protection for honour, dignity and reputation. The assertion by MP Dinu Plîngău that, following the repeal of Article 70, individuals will be able to defend themselves ‘only in civil proceedings’ erroneously presents civil liability as an inferior or insufficient mechanism. Law No. 64/2010 on freedom of expression is a legislative act which, unlike the current mechanism enshrined in the Code of Administrative Offences, reflects in detail the standards developed in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) on freedom of expression and provides sufficient and effective civil remedies to restore the rights of defamed individuals.
Contrary to the statements made in plenary, Article 70 is not merely a ‘preventive’ measure. The provision allows for the imposition of fines, unpaid community service, a ban on holding certain offices or carrying out certain activities and, in certain situations, administrative detention. In Decision No. 3 of 19 January 2023, the Constitutional Court (CC) characterised liability for defamation as ‘criminal liability in the broad sense’ and recognised its punitive and preventive nature. The CC did not rule that the retention of Article 70 was mandatory, stating that criminal policy and the decision on whether to criminalise or decriminalise a particular conduct fall within the competence of Parliament.
The preventive nature, invoked in support of Article 70, does not, in itself, constitute an argument for its retention. In the context of freedom of expression, the threat of a punitive sanction may have a chilling effect on journalistic reporting on matters of public interest. The risk is not purely hypothetical. Media non-governmental organisations have highlighted at least three instances in which the provisions of Article 70 have been used against journalists, and these have been described as a means of exerting pressure on and intimidating the press.
The signatory organisations emphasise that establishing the existence of defamation requires a sophisticated legal analysis and, in many cases, police officers, who are empowered to establish the offence of defamation, have proved unprepared to apply the standards of freedom of expression. The investigating officer must distinguish between factual accounts and value judgements; determine whether the subject is of public interest, whether the person concerned is a public figure, whether there was a sufficient factual basis, whether the journalist acted in good faith and with due diligence, and whether the wording constitutes satire, hyperbole or permissible provocation. Applying these criteria requires in-depth knowledge of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and a genuine exercise in balancing freedom of expression with the right to reputation. Documented practice shows that the police are not institutionally or professionally equipped to apply these standards correctly and consistently. Protecting journalists against abusive civil proceedings, whilst simultaneously allowing for the possibility of intimidating them through complaints lodged with the police, would render the anti-SLAPP mechanism incomplete.
The signatory organisations understand the reluctance that new legal mechanisms may generate and acknowledge that, in the absence of adequate training for the judiciary, anti-SLAPP safeguards could lead to flawed applications. However, this risk does not stem from the content of the draft and does not justify the removal or watering down of the proposed safeguards. The issue lies with the state’s ability to strengthen the capacities of those within the justice system, to develop practical guidelines and to ensure the monitoring of case law, so that these absolutely necessary mechanisms are applied consistently and uniformly.
We call on the Parliament of the Republic of Moldova not to weaken, during the second reading of the draft bill, the essential safeguards of the anti-SLAPP mechanism, including by abandoning the repeal of Article 70 of the Code of Administrative Offences, and to ensure effective consultation with media organisations, journalists and experts on freedom of expression prior to the adoption of the draft bill in its final reading.
At the same time, we call on MPs to refrain from making inaccurate or unverified statements that could jeopardise a reform that is essential for the journalistic community
Independent Journalism Centre
Organisations that have endorsed the statement:
- Acces-info Centre
- Association of Electronic Press
- Association of Independent Press
- RISE Moldova
- Press Freedom Committee
- Centre for Investigative Journalism
