Journalists and media outlets in Albania continue to face defamation lawsuits, which in some cases may serve as a pressure mechanism to intimidate journalists and encourage self-censorship. These lawsuits are known as SLAPPs and are linked to efforts to hinder public participation and reporting on issues of interest to citizens.
An analysis of 333 court decisions for the period 2022–2026 found that 171 of them showed possible indicators of strategic lawsuits against public participation. Meanwhile, 50 cases, or 15 percent of the sample reviewed, were classified as high risk of being SLAPP lawsuits.
The data was presented by the “Res Publica” Center during the publication of the study “Freedom of Expression in Judicial Practice 2022–2026: How the ECtHR Case Law Is Reflected by Albanian Courts”. The report was prepared by experts Dorian Matlija and Irena Dule and includes civil, criminal, administrative and constitutional decisions.
According to the analysis, 190 decisions, representing 57 percent of the total, involve journalists, media outlets or other actors who perform a public informing function. This places the media among the groups most exposed to legal conflicts related to freedom of expression.
The report highlights several ways in which these proceedings can create pressure on journalists. These include demands for high financial damages, multiple lawsuits over the same publication, demands for public apologies, removal of materials and bans on future publications.
Another problem is the duration of court proceedings, which in some cases have lasted for years, even up to 17 years. This situation can cause financial and professional costs, encouraging self-censorship even when the case ends in favor of the media.
Lawyer Dorian Matlija stressed that there is no single methodology for identifying SLAPP lawsuits, but there are several indicators that help in classifying them.
The authors call on courts to more clearly apply the standards of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as to assess the impact these proceedings have on freedom of expression. Recommendations were also addressed to the High Court and the School of Magistrates for strengthening standards and training judges in this field.