Libel damages imposed by foreign courts should not exceed those outlined in Maltese law, according to the Front Against Censorship, which on Friday unveiled a series of anti-SLAPP amendments.

Strategic Lawsuits against Public Participation (SLAPP) lawsuits are designed to silence and intimidate critics, often by burdening them with lawsuits in foreign jurisdictions.

Addressing a press conference, the body said that until Brussels issued an EU-wide directive abolishing the vexatious lawsuits, it was proposing a number of amendments to the new law which would serve as “buffer for the Maltese press” while still compliant with the Brussels I Regulation.

Read: Minister slaps down SLAPP amendments meant to protect journalists

“While not denying courts found in other EU member states jurisdiction to hear defamation cases concerning a defendant resident or domiciled in Malta, the front is proposing that the Maltese courts give due consideration to a number of aspects prior to deciding whether to enforce a decision given by a foreign court,” the body said.

It also argued that the amendments would serve to guide courts in Malta as to whether the defendant was accorded equal rights in the foreign court, whether damages imposed by the such court would result in the financial ruin of the newspaper or compromise its ability to operate, and whether the judgment was likely to impede the newspaper's journalistic freedoms or freedom of expression.

"We believe that these protections are compatible with the public policy exception of the Brussels I Regulation. This would mean that the jurisdiction of foreign courts would not be ruled out a priori, and that the judgments given by foreign courts could still be applied in Malta, as long as they were not in violation of the rights granted above," the front noted.

Asked by the Times of Malta why it was proposing the amendments now and not before the new law came into force, the anti-censorship front’s Mark Camilleri said that the issue needed to be evaluated thoroughly before any proposals were made, noting that the body had been involved in intense talks with the government that required the group’s full attention.

Justice Minister Owen Bonnici had argued that anti-SLAPP amendments proposed by the opposition could not be made to the new Media and Defamation Bill because they violated EU rules.