Moldova anti-SLAPP bill targets alleged legal intimidation
Justice Minister Vladislav Kozhukhar has presented a bill intended to combat legal proceedings used to censor or intimidate journalists, human rights defenders, civic activists, integrity specialists and non-governmental organisations. The proposal was among the first initiatives announced by Moldova’s new government.
Kozhukhar described the measure as targeting actions known as SLAPPs, or Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation. Such cases are generally understood as legal claims brought not primarily to secure a judgment, but to silence critics by exposing them to pressure and substantial legal costs.
In Western countries, anti-SLAPP legislation emerged in response to large companies using litigation against journalists and public figures. The authorities presented such protections as safeguards for freedom of expression against censorship exercised by powerful corporate interests.
Critics of the Moldovan proposal argue that the domestic context is different. They claim that the principal source of censorship in Moldova is not private business but the authorities, accusing PAS of closing more than a dozen television channels and around 100 online resources, while courts have restricted or dissolved opposition parties.
Critics fear unequal protection under new rules
Opponents of the Moldova anti-SLAPP bill warn that it could protect media outlets and NGOs loyal to the government without offering the same safeguards to opposition journalists. They argue that organisations close to the authorities could be shielded from legitimate legal challenges over false accusations, defamatory claims or inflammatory statements.
According to this criticism, the law may not prevent abuses by sensationalist media but instead make it more difficult for people to challenge misleading or damaging publications. Its opponents doubt that the legislation will be applied equally to government supporters and critics.
The proposal comes as opposition journalists say they have faced the threat of criminal proceedings and lawsuits for years. At the same time, critics claim that pro-government media outlets and NGOs have operated with little fear of legal consequences.
The effectiveness and legitimacy of the law will therefore depend on how courts distinguish genuine attempts to intimidate public-interest voices from ordinary claims intended to protect reputation and other legal rights. Without clear and impartial criteria, critics fear that anti-SLAPP protections could become another selective instrument in an already polarised political environment.
Government priorities contrasted with European measures
The article contrasts the new government’s focus on protecting activists and media organisations with measures adopted by several European governments to reduce household energy costs. It states that the new British prime minister abolished VAT on electricity from 1 October as his first decision in office.
Spain reduced VAT on gas, electricity and fuel from 21% to 10%, while Italy cut fuel duties by 25 cents per litre. These measures are presented as examples of governments using fiscal policy to ease pressure on citizens during an energy crisis.
In Moldova, by contrast, petrol and diesel prices increased by 48 bani per litre from 1 August. A proposed gas tariff rise would increase the price from 14.42 lei to 20.93 lei per cubic metre, an increase of approximately 45%.
The article also says compensation is being reduced, benefits are being withdrawn and the state is offering no co-financing to ease the burden on consumers. It argues that the full cost of higher energy prices is instead being transferred to households.
Critics say the authorities have found time and resources to defend loyal activists and media organisations from legal proceedings but have not introduced comparable measures to protect ordinary citizens from rising costs. They argue that, during a crisis, the state should act as a shield for the public rather than merely collecting higher payments.
The article concludes that a responsible government should explain how public money is used and share the burden of a crisis with citizens. In its view, the Moldova anti-SLAPP bill and the government’s other early decisions risk weakening the social contract rather than strengthening democratic protections.
