Moldova’s Proposed Anti-SLAPP Package: a legal analysis

The Moldovan Parliament approved its anti-SLAPP bill in its first reading in July 2026. The proposal stems from Moldova’s alignment with EU standards, transposing the EU Anti-SLAPP Directive (EU) 2024/1069 while also reflecting Council of Europe recommendations. Unlike the Directive, which applies only to cross-border cases, Moldova’s draft extends protection to domestic litigation—a significant expansion, as most SLAPP-like cases originate within the country.

Prepared by the Ministry of Justice following a February 2026 announcement, the bill underwent public consultation in April 2026 and was revised following stakeholder feedback, legal compatibility assessments, and an anti-corruption review. The Government approved the draft on 22 July, and Parliament adopted it in its first reading on 24 July. The bill will now proceed to its second and final readings before promulgation and entry into force.

The proposed legislation introduces:

• mechanisms for the early dismissal of manifestly unfounded lawsuits;
• mandatory security for costs, requiring plaintiffs to provide a deposit to cover estimated court costs and potential damages if the lawsuit is found to be abusive;
• compensation for damages and fines ranging from 1,000 to 250,000 MDL (approximately €50 to €12,500).

The draft also strengthens access to justice by allowing defendants seeking early dismissal to qualify for state-funded legal aid.

In its current form, Moldova’s anti-SLAPP package represents a significant legislative step and is arguably more comprehensive than legislation adopted in many EU Member States.

For media outlets and civil society actors, the most significant benefit would be avoiding years of costly litigation. Early dismissal procedures and security-for-costs requirements could substantially reduce the financial and psychological burden of abusive lawsuits, helping protect investigative journalism and civic participation. Ultimately, however, the reform’s effectiveness will depend on its implementation. Whether judges consistently identify abusive litigation, apply the burden of proof correctly, and impose sanctions proportionately will determine the law’s practical impact. The second reading provides an opportunity to refine key aspects, including fine thresholds, procedural timelines, and the scope of legal aid, before the legislation is adopted.