The legal advisory board of the German No SLAPP contact point in conversation: Dr. Jonas Kahl

The No SLAPP contact point for the protection of journalistic work in Germany is currently supported by 17 legal experts to ensure that the training courses and other services offered by the contact point are of the highest professional standard. And to provide the best possible legal advice in specific SLAPPs, in cases with press and expression law, labor law, but also criminal law dimensions. 

In this series of interviews, we introduce the advisory board members individually, today with perspectives from Dr. Jonas Kahl from Leipzig. Jonas Kahl is a specialist lawyer for copyright and media law and a partner in the law firm Spirit Legal in Leipzig. He specializes in advising and representing clients in matters relating to internet law, press law, general personality rights, freedom of expression and licensing law. Kahl holds a doctorate from the University of Leipzig and a Master of Laws from the Media Institute of Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz.

How do you relate to the topic of SLAPP - which forms of intimidation through legal means do you deal with particularly intensively?  

The spectrum of our clients is broad and ranges from private individuals and companies to journalists and representatives of non-profit and political organizations. In cases aimed at intimidation, the opposing side often includes competitors of companies, those affected by media reports, but also political actors from the right-wing spectrum who are trying to steer the public discourse.

What is your advice for those affected by legal intimidation attempts?  

I would like to say: stand up to the intimidation. This means seeking legal advice and then defending yourself, represented by legal counsel, both out of court and - if necessary - in court. It is particularly important not to give these attempts at legal intimidation a structure or routine. However, in view of the high costs threatened and the number of proceedings to be expected in some cases, this is often not the preferred course of action for those affected. The current situation should be countered as effectively as possible by implementing the directive.

In the EU Directive "on the protection of persons who engage in public participation against manifestly unfounded claims or abusive litigation" SLAPP was officially defined for the first time in Europe. (To what extent) does this wording already influence your work, even before it is transposed into national law?

There is currently no direct influence. Nevertheless, it is possible to use the Directive in cases of intimidation. Nevertheless, the German courts make their decision after weighing up the merits of the case. Such disputes are usually protracted until they end with a judgment or, not infrequently, as a result of the withdrawal of applications on the plaintiff's side.

What should legislators in Germany pay particular attention to when implementing the law?   

The focus should be on making the application of the directive more practicable and giving the scope of application a clear framework. I am thinking in particular of a still very broad interpretation of the terms in Article 4 of the Directive. In particular, the abuse element should be more carefully framed. A good example of how to implement this could be the formulation of the doubt rule in Section 8c (2) UWG. Ultimately, the Directive should not lead to even more economic pressure being exerted on weaker defendants if they first have to have the existence of a SLAPP claim established by a court.

What public understanding of SLAPP do you propose until implementation - which cases should be understood as SLAPP, which perhaps not? What do you think is the most important thing the public should know about SLAPPs?  

SLAPP should be understood as the targeted abuse of the rule of law to suppress public participation. Nevertheless, the concept should not be extended too far until it is implemented. Otherwise, SLAPP would probably be discussed as a curtailment of freedom of the press and freedom of expression. This should not be the aim of a public debate.

How do you think legal intimidation attempts can be defended against particularly well? When defending your clients against SLAPPs, what things do you need in your toolbox?  

When dealing with such cases, it is particularly important to be able to separate any smoke and mirrors from the actual core of the dispute. Only on this basis can clients gain a realistic view of the actual risks of the dispute. In some cases, it can also be helpful to deliberately go public and make the attempt at intimidation transparent.