Transposition of the Anti-SLAPP Directive: new protections against strategic lawsuits

1. The fact

   The case originates from the long legislative process leading to Directive (EU) 2024/1069, known as the Daphne Directive. According to reports from outlets such as Il Sole 24 Ore, Ansa, and Articolo 21, Italy has historically been identified as one of the European countries with the highest number of vexatious lawsuits, aimed not at winning on the merits, but at exhausting the counterparty's economic resources. The current procedural stage sees the regulation in the national transposition phase (with DDL no. 935 currently in the Justice Commission), aiming to integrate European protections into the national legal system. News reports highlighted how the legislator's goal was to balance the right of action with the need to prevent abuses that undermine public participation, introducing objective criteria to identify so-called strategic lawsuits.

2. 

   Rules at play

   The regulatory framework is based on Directive (EU) 2024/1069 and specific internal rules.

   1. The Directive introduces early dismissal for manifestly unfounded claims, allowing the judge to close the case at an early stage.
   2. Article 14 concerns financial security (security) and the Directive does not contain fixed damage quantifications or compensation tables.
   3. Article 15 is dedicated to the award of costs, while Article 16 provides for deterrent sanctions against the party who initiated the vexatious lawsuit.
   4. Article 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in its updated version, governs aggravated liability, allowing the judge ex officio to order the losing party to pay an equitable sum for abuse of the procedural tool.

3. Jurisprudence

   Legitimacy jurisprudence has clarified that conviction for vexatious litigation has not only a compensatory nature, but also a punitive and deflationary one. According to established trends, the judge can impose sanctions even without proof of damage, as the rule aims to protect the public interest in the proper functioning of justice, avoiding the waste of procedural resources. Constitutional jurisprudence has also emphasized that, although the right to reputation is inviolable, it must be balanced with freedom of expression, preventing judicial tools from becoming a means of indirect censorship. Courts have specified that bad faith or gross negligence is present when action is undertaken with knowledge of its groundlessness or without normal prudence in verifying facts.

5. Analysis drafted and verified with edit.legal

   To verify the provisions cited in this article, we used edit.legal. Test our legal AI on official sources and apply it to your own matters.

   Try edit.legal AI

8. Professional lessons

   1. Identify early the indicators of abuse of process to immediately formulate the motion for early dismissal.
   2. Analytically document the damage from the chilling effect, including legal fees and the psychological impact on the client.
   3. Prudently evaluate the filing of compensatory actions for defamation, avoiding excessive demands that could backfire on the client as vexatious litigation.
   4. Monitor the evolution of early dismissal criteria established by courts to refine defensive strategies.

References: Direttiva (UE) 2024/1069Art. 96 Codice di Procedura CivileArt. 21 Costituzione ItalianaCode of Civil ProcedureArt. 21 Costituzione Italiana Italiana

Editorial oversight: Avv. Federico Papa·ICAMUpdated 25 October 2026Content drafted with AI support and subject to editorial source checks. Despite these controls, inaccuracies may remain: reports and rectification requests are welcome. Report a correction