In the context of the examination of Draft Law No. 8696 in Luxembourg, the issue at stake concerns not only abuses of civil law procedures, but also the use of criminal prosecution as a tool of pressure against participants in public discourse.
SLAPP lawsuits are traditionally associated with civil defamation proceedings; however, European practice shows that criminal law can also be used as a form of SLAPP pressure, creating an even more severe “chilling effect” on freedom of expression.
📌 Criminal prosecution as a form of SLAPP pressure
Particular concern arises when criminal law is used not to protect public safety, but to:
- punish the disclosure of information of public interest
- prosecute journalists for publications
- initiate cases involving “breach of secrecy”, “complicity”, or “unlawful acquisition of information”
- pressure whistleblowers
Unlike civil actions, criminal proceedings have significantly greater repressive potential, as they include:
- risk of imprisonment
- preliminary investigations and searches
- seizure of materials and sources
- long investigative procedures
- criminalisation of journalistic activity
This is why the criminal dimension of SLAPP represents the most dangerous form of pressure on freedom of expression.
⚖️ European standards: protection against criminal SLAPP
European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)
Key provisions include:
- Article 10 ECHR — freedom of expression
- Article 6 ECHR — right to a fair trial
- Article 8 ECHR — right to private life
The European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly emphasised that measures with a chilling effect on journalism or public debate must be strictly assessed for proportionality.
In Roemen and Schmit v. Luxembourg, the Court held that investigative measures targeting journalistic activity can create a strong deterrent effect on information sources, violating Article 10 ECHR.
In Halet v. Luxembourg (LuxLeaks), the Court confirmed that criminal conviction for disclosing information of public interest may be incompatible with the Convention.
EU Directive 2024/1069 (Anti-SLAPP)
Although primarily focused on civil and commercial proceedings, its rationale extends to the criminal context through the principles of:
- protection of participation in public debate
- prohibition of repressive interference with freedom of expression
- prevention of procedures with a chilling effect
Importantly, the Directive protects:
- journalists
- human rights defenders
- whistleblowers
- participants in public discourse
which logically includes protection against criminal forms of pressure.
⚖️ Luxembourg: criminal-law dimension of risks
Practice shows that in Luxembourg-related cases, criminal mechanisms play a significant role:
📌 1. Disclosure of information cases
- criminal prosecution for leaks or transmission of information
- classification as breach of professional secrecy or complicity
- risk of criminalising information sources
📌 2. Investigations involving journalists and sources
- searches and seizure of materials
- pressure on information sources
- disclosure of journalistic data during investigations
📌 3. LuxLeaks cases
- criminal prosecution of whistleblowers
- lengthy judicial proceedings
- international criticism regarding freedom of expression
The Halet case became a key example of how criminal law may conflict with the public interest in disclosure of information.
⚠️ Structural risk: “criminal SLAPP effect”
Three main mechanisms can be identified:
(1) Criminalisation of information disclosure
- prosecution for publications
- broad interpretation of secrecy laws
- use of criminal provisions against journalism
(2) Procedural pressure
- searches
- data seizure
- prolonged investigations without conviction
(3) Psychological and economic impact
- fear of criminal liability
- loss of access to sources
- self-censorship in the media
📌 Even without a conviction, the investigation itself may function as a SLAPP instrument.
📌 Need to include criminal safeguards in Draft Law No. 8696
To comply with European standards, the law should explicitly include:
1. Proportionality review of criminal proceedings
Any criminal case involving public interest must be assessed in light of:
- Article 10 ECHR
- public interest
- necessity and proportionality
2. Early judicial control
A mechanism should be introduced to:
- review the justification of initiating criminal proceedings
- prevent abuse of investigative powers
- limit repressive measures pending public interest assessment
3. Protection of whistleblowers and journalists from criminalisation
- prohibition of disproportionate criminal prosecution for disclosures of public interest
- strengthened protection of journalistic sources
- recognition of public interest as a key criterion
4. Compensation mechanisms
- damages for wrongful criminal prosecution
- reimbursement of defence costs
- sanctions for abuse of criminal procedures
📌 Conclusion
Criminal prosecution is the most powerful instrument that can be used as a SLAPP mechanism. Unlike civil actions, it can not only restrict freedom of expression but fully suppress participation in public debate through the threat of imprisonment and coercive investigative measures.
Including anti-SLAPP safeguards in Draft Law No. 8696, with explicit consideration of the criminal dimension, would:
- prevent the criminalisation of public interest
- ensure real protection for journalists and whistleblowers
- align national law with European standards
- eliminate the chilling effect of criminal pressure
Thus, what is required is not only a civil-law response, but also a criminal-law anti-SLAPP reform, without which the protection of freedom of expression remains incomplete.
| документ | дата | примечание | |
| Направление запроса в Министерство юстиции Transmission de la demande au ministère de la Justice Submission of the request to the Ministry of Justice Weiterleitung des Antrags an das Justizministerium | 04-26 | 08.04.2026 | |
| Ответ из министерства юстиции Réponse du ministère de la Justice Response from the Ministry of Justice Antwort des Justizministeriums | DIRCIV-15/2026 | 10.08.2026 | |
| Направление предложений в палату депутатов и профильный комитет министерства юстиции который отвечает за рассмотрение законопроекта Transmission des propositions à la Chambre des députés et à la commission compétente du ministère de la Justice chargée de l’examen du projet de loi Submission of proposals to the Chamber of Deputies and to the competent committee of the Ministry of Justice responsible for reviewing the draft law Weiterleitung der Vorschläge an die Abgeordnetenkammer und an den zuständigen Ausschuss des Justizministeriums, der für die Prüfung des Gesetzentwurfs zuständig ist | 05-26 | 16.04.2026 | |