In its January 18, 2024 decision in Allée v. France, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that France violated the freedom of expression by wrongly convicting someone who had accused colleagues of harassment without adequate proof, under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Additionally, the European Parliament and Council’s Directive (EU) 2024/1069, issued on April 11, 2024, and published on April 16, 2024, protects public discourse participants from baseless legal actions and abusive lawsuits, known as “strategic lawsuits against public participation” (SLAPP).In the Allée v. France case decided on January 18, 2024, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that France violated the freedom of expression by convicting an individual who, without sufficient proof, accused colleagues of harassment. This decision came shortly before the European Union Directive 2024/1069 was published, aimed at protecting public discourse participants from baseless legal claims and abusive legal procedures, known as “strategic lawsuits against public participation” (SLAPP).
The case involved a secretary who felt harassed by her executive vice-president and eventually sent an accusatory email about him, leading to her and her husband being sued for public defamation. The French courts initially found the email to be public and defamatory, dismissing her defense that the email was private and that she had a right to report workplace offenses. However, the ECHR disagreed, highlighting that the distribution of the email was limited and criticizing the excessive proof burden required by French courts, which overlooked the challenges of proving harassment.
The ECHR’s decision raised concerns about possibly encouraging defamation by lowering the threshold for accountability in serious accusations without solid grounds. It suggests a potential shift in the legal landscape where freedom of expression could be used to shield false accusations, creating a complex legal scenario where defamation might be more easily excused under the guise of free speech.
This verdict aligns with the EU Directive aimed at protecting individuals from SLAPP, emphasizing rapid judicial assessment of claims’ validity to prevent misuse of the legal system to stifle public discourse. However, the directive also includes provisions like requiring plaintiffs to deposit a security to cover procedural costs, potentially discouraging frivolous lawsuits but also risking the limitation of access to justice.
Overall, these developments reflect a tension between enhancing freedom of expression and ensuring that this freedom does not facilitate the spread of misinformation or unwarranted attacks on individuals’ reputations, presenting a significant challenge in balancing these competing interests in the evolving landscape of European and international law.