Daredevil complaints, yes to delegation to the government

It passes the House in the Justice Committee the delegation to the government on rash lawsuits. Crystallised in an additional article to the European delegation law, the regulation concerns the transposition into our law of Directive 2024/1069, aimed at countering strategic lawsuits against public participation. Perhaps too vague an expression, but the perimeter of application of the protective discipline undoubtedly also includes the figures of journalists against pretextual and intimidating legal initiatives.

The only somewhat more precise criterion to which the government will have to adhere when exercising the delegation is to clarify the 'issues with cross-border implications', which are central, in the majority reading, to the specification of protection measures.

Too much and too little, for the oppositions. If in fact on the one hand the delegation is extremely vague, leaving too much room for manoeuvre in its implementation, on the other hand the criterion of transnationality excludes exclusively national legal actions, which should have been included instead.

For Valentina D'Orso (5 Stelle), the government's amendment is just "a cosmetic intervention that reveals the real intention not to comply with EU law. At present,' continues D'Orso, 'in fact, the only principle and guiding criterion formulated in the Government's amendment requires the definition of the notion of "matters with "cross-border implications". This provision reveals, moreover, the Government's desire to limit as much as possible the scope of the directive's implementing rules, in no way wanting them to have a place in domestic disputes where there would instead be a need to ensure the maximum protection for those who operate in the world of information'.

Rejected were the proposals of the 5 Star and PD aimed at placing in the hands of the judges the possibility of immediately dismissing manifestly unfounded actions, also accompanying the decision with fine sanctions.