PIL.OT / DEVELOPMENT
PIL.OTv0.57.7
Gábor Levente Kozma and Murilo Lubambo de Melo address how the European Union and England and Wales can constrain cross-border SLAPPs, focusing on the allocation of international jurisdiction. They also consider the recognition and enforcement of decisions arising from such proceedings.
The comparison covers the Brussels I Recast Regulation, the EU Anti-SLAPP Directive, the Court of Justice judgment in Real Madrid v. Le Monde, and relevant English statutory, common-law and procedural rules. The authors conclude that the tools available in both systems can be refined to respond more effectively to the cross-border effects of SLAPPs.
Determining international jurisdiction over cross-border SLAPP proceedings and recognising and enforcing decisions arising from those proceedings
The practical problem is twofold: identifying the appropriate forum for cross-border SLAPPs and securing or resisting the effect of resulting decisions abroad. By considering anti-SLAPP measures alongside jurisdiction and recognition-and-enforcement rules, the analysis places the Brussels I Recast Regulation, the EU Anti-SLAPP Directive, Real Madrid v. Le Monde and English legal tools within a single comparative framework.
Netherlands International Law Review · 2026
DOI 10.1007/s40802-026-00297-z
Gábor Levente Kozma, Murilo Lubambo de Melo, “Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation in a Cross-Border Context: Anti-SLAPP Legislation and the Role of the Private International Law Regimes in the EU and England”, Netherlands International Law Review, 2026-08-25, 10.1007/s40802-026-00297-z. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40802-026-00297-z