WILLEMSTAD – A court ruling involving Curaçao's online gambling industry has highlighted the legal protections available to journalists and public commentators while also demonstrating the limits of invoking anti-SLAPP protections against lawsuits.
On November 2, 2026, the Court of First Instance dismissed a lawsuit brought by businessman Mario Fiorini, Phaedra Hanst, and IGA Trust B.V. against journalist and commentator Luigi Angelo Faneyte.
At the same time, the court rejected Faneyte's counterclaim that the proceedings amounted to an abusive lawsuit intended to restrict public participation.
The decision illustrates an important distinction: a lawsuit challenging public criticism can fail without necessarily qualifying as an abusive legal proceeding.
What Is a SLAPP Lawsuit?
SLAPP stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.
The term generally refers to legal proceedings intended to intimidate, silence, or financially pressure journalists, activists, researchers, or other individuals who participate in public debate.
Such proceedings may involve claims for defamation, reputational damage, or other alleged civil wrongs.
The European Union adopted Directive 2024/1069 to provide safeguards against manifestly unfounded claims and abusive court proceedings targeting public participation in cross-border civil matters.
The directive is intended to help protect individuals and organizations from litigation used primarily to discourage public scrutiny.
However, the existence of a legal dispute involving a journalist does not automatically mean that the lawsuit constitutes a SLAPP.
That distinction was central to Faneyte's unsuccessful counterclaim.
Faneyte Accused Plaintiffs of Misusing Legal Proceedings
During the proceedings, Faneyte argued that the lawsuit against him was intended to prevent him from continuing his public criticism of the gambling industry.
He sought a declaration that the proceedings constituted an abusive lawsuit against public participation.
The court examined this argument separately from the question of whether his publications were unlawful.
According to the judgment, Faneyte had not sufficiently substantiated the allegation that the proceedings were abusive.
The court also considered the applicability of the European anti-SLAPP directive and the requirements for establishing an improper use of legal proceedings.
It concluded that Faneyte had not demonstrated the necessary basis for the declaration he requested.
Consequently, the court dismissed his counterclaim.
This finding does not mean the court considered the original lawsuit justified.
In fact, the court rejected all the claims brought against Faneyte.
The ruling instead establishes that the failure of a lawsuit does not, by itself, prove that the proceedings were initiated for an improper purpose.
Public Participation Receives Strong Legal Protection
Although Faneyte did not succeed with his anti-SLAPP counterclaim, the court's assessment of the principal lawsuit placed considerable emphasis on freedom of expression.
The judgment examined principles developed by the European Court of Human Rights under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
These principles recognize freedom of expression as an essential foundation of democratic society.
The court also considered the protection of reputation and private life under Article 8 of the Convention.
When these rights conflict, courts must assess the circumstances of the publication and balance the competing interests.
Relevant considerations include whether the statements contribute to a debate of general interest, the public role of the individuals involved, the factual basis for the statements, and the manner in which the information was obtained and presented.
The court found that Faneyte's publications concerned an issue of substantial public importance: the operation and regulation of Curaçao's online gambling industry.
The industry has been the subject of extensive political and public discussion, particularly regarding licensing practices, government oversight, and the introduction of new legislation.
The judgment recognized that public debate on these issues deserves meaningful protection.
Public Figures Must Tolerate Greater Scrutiny
The court also examined Fiorini's public role in discussions about gambling regulation.
According to the judgment, Fiorini had participated in efforts to influence the development of gambling legislation and had publicly expressed positions concerning the industry.
The court considered this relevant when assessing the level of criticism he could reasonably be expected to tolerate.
Individuals who voluntarily enter public debates, particularly on controversial policy matters, generally expose themselves to greater scrutiny.
That does not mean their reputations are without legal protection.
It does mean that criticism concerning their public activities may receive stronger protection than statements about purely private matters.
The court concluded that Faneyte's criticism should be assessed against this broader background.
Criminal Complaints and Public Reporting
Another important element concerned criminal complaints Faneyte had submitted involving alleged irregularities in Curaçao's gambling sector.
The complaints referred to matters involving gambling companies, licensing arrangements, and individuals connected to the industry.
Fiorini and the other plaintiffs argued that Faneyte had made incorrect allegations and subsequently publicized them.
The court examined the circumstances surrounding the complaints and the publications that followed.
It did not conclude that the allegations contained in those complaints had been proven.
Instead, the court found insufficient grounds to characterize Faneyte's conduct as unlawful toward the plaintiffs.
This distinction is important for understanding the ruling.
A person may be permitted to raise concerns with investigative authorities and discuss matters of public interest without the resulting civil proceedings establishing that the allegations are factually correct.
Equally, freedom of expression does not provide unlimited protection for knowingly false accusations or statements made without an adequate factual basis.
The legality of such statements depends on their content, context, and the circumstances in which they were made.
Why the Decision Matters for Curaçao
Curaçao's online gambling industry has undergone significant regulatory and political scrutiny.
Questions concerning licensing arrangements, government oversight, financial transparency, and the responsibilities of operators have generated public controversy.
In that environment, journalists, commentators, business representatives, and political figures frequently express sharply differing views.
The November 2 ruling demonstrates that courts must carefully balance the right to criticize matters of public importance against the right of individuals and businesses to protect their reputations.
It also shows that allegations of abusive litigation require their own legal and factual foundation.
The court's refusal to classify the proceedings as an abusive lawsuit should therefore not be confused with approval of the claims brought against Faneyte.
Those claims were dismissed.
Similarly, the dismissal of the lawsuit does not constitute judicial confirmation of the allegations Faneyte made about Fiorini or the gambling industry.
The court ruled on whether the publications and conduct were unlawful and whether the requested remedies were justified.
Both Sides' Claims Rejected
In the principal proceedings, Fiorini and the other plaintiffs sought the removal of publications, corrections, restrictions on future statements, and an advance payment of XCG 130,000 in damages.
The court rejected those demands.
Faneyte's counterclaim seeking recognition of an abusive lawsuit was also dismissed.
The plaintiffs were ordered to pay XCG 6,000 in legal costs in the principal proceedings, plus XCG 250 in subsequent costs, with a possible additional XCG 150 if service of the judgment is required.
No additional legal costs were awarded in the counterclaim.
The ruling leaves an important legal message for Curaçao's public debate.
Freedom of expression provides substantial protection when criticism concerns issues of genuine public importance, especially where individuals have voluntarily entered political or regulatory discussions.
At the same time, the right to bring a lawsuit remains protected, and accusations that legal proceedings are abusive must be supported by sufficient evidence.
The case therefore reinforces two principles that must coexist in a democratic society: the right to scrutinize powerful interests and the right to seek judicial protection when reputations are allegedly harmed.