One of the most striking examples of how judges can use lawsuits against journalists happened to those who professionally investigate the judiciary — the journalists of the KRIK portal. While the entire “Prosudi ko sudi” (Judge Who Judges) database was created to help citizens know who passes judgments on them, in this case, a judge decided to sue to have her publicly available data removed and even demanded prison sentences for the journalists. This case has become an issue that concerns not only the boundaries of freedom of expression, but also how the judiciary relates to the very public it serves.
Dušanka Đorđević, an Appellate Court judge in Belgrade, and her husband, lawyer Aleksandar Đorđević, filed two lawsuits against the investigative portal KRIK. The first is a civil lawsuit — demanding non-material damages amounting to 760,000 dinars, claiming that the “Prosudi ko sudi” database violated their privacy by publishing data on the number and type of properties they own. The second is a criminal lawsuit — seeking to have KRIK journalists Stevan Dojčinović and Bojana Pavlović sentenced to ten months in prison each and banned from working as journalists for two years. KRIK itself reported on the details of this trial in its court reports.
Judge Đorđević claims that publishing her personal data, even though it was obtained from public records, directly endangered her safety. Her legal representative additionally stated that including this information in the database made the judge vulnerable to possible attacks, despite the fact that precise property addresses were not published. KRIK, on the other hand, points out that all the data was obtained legally and officially, through the Law on Free Access to Information and from public land registry databases, and that no data protection laws were violated.
KRIK’s editor-in-chief, Stevan Dojčinović, told the court that removing the data would mean abandoning the database’s core purpose — to ensure citizens know who judges them, how much judges earn, and how their property changes during their term. In a public statement, Dojčinović emphasized that if such lawsuits were successful, they would open the door for any judge to request the deletion of their data, thus preventing journalists from investigating the judiciary. He stressed that this is so far one of the biggest pressures on KRIK because it involves not only financial compensation but also a demand to ban journalists from working altogether.
The “Prosudi ko sudi” database itself was developed over several months, and KRIK explained in detail how journalists collected data from public sources and court documents, while informing all judges about what information would be published. The newsroom notes that they sent multiple questions to Judge Đorđević as well, giving her the opportunity to respond and present her side. The public could follow all of this in KRIK’s special investigations.
The trial on these lawsuits is ongoing, with the next hearing scheduled for the second half of 2025. year. The final judgment is expected to raise an important question — where are the boundaries of the public’s right to know how judges live and work, and can freedom of expression truly be limited when verified, official data is published.
This text was prepared within the framework of the Western Balkans Civil Society Development Hub project, funded by Sida and implemented by BCSDN.
The content of this text, information, and views presented do not represent the official position and opinion of Sida and BCSDN. Responsibility for the information and views expressed in this document lies entirely with the author(s).
