Aleksandar Senić v. Milica Vojtek

Association "Eutopia" (publisher), Vladimir Radomirović (editor), Milica Vojtek (journalist) (Journalist)

Pištaljka

In progress. The lawsuit was rejected at first instance (November 24, 2021), but the appeal procedure is still ongoing. Judge Bojana Čogurić concluded that Pištaljka wrote with appropriate care and that the article “Aleksandar Senić conceals fraud in the construction of the water factory in Rača” does not contain illegal information that could harm the honor and reputation of the prosecutor. In the judgment, the judge states that the text “presents the journalist’s critical opinion about the prosecutor as a holder of public office, who is obliged to suffer criticism related to the results of his work, which is related to the performance of his office.” It is also stated that “imposing on journalists the obligation to refrain from making statements that imply criticism of politicians would inevitably have a deterrent effect in the sense of not fulfilling their basic task, gathering information and guardians of the public interest.”

It is interesting that the lawsuit was sent to Vladimir Radomirović not at his official residence address, but at the address where he lived at the time, which was known only to a narrow circle of people.

1. With the lawsuit that initiated the procedure, the plaintiff uses an imbalance of power, such as his financial advantage, political/social influence or authority as a power holder, in which way he puts pressure on the defendant – an actor participating in the public debate.

The prosecutor is an official of the Serbian Progressive Party, a municipal leader and one of the directors in Corridors of Serbia. The political influence and financial advantage he has in relation to the defendants puts him in a privileged position, but because of the functions he performs, he should be exposed to a greater degree of public criticism.

2. The arguments presented by the prosecutor are partially or completely unfounded.

The plaintiff is an official of the Serbian Progressive Party, a municipal leader and one of the directors in Corridors of Serbia. The political influence and financial advantage he has in relation to the defendants puts him in a privileged position, but because of the functions he performs, he should be exposed to a greater degree of public criticism.

3. The lawsuit or legal remedy, that is, the request or proposal submitted by the plaintiff is disproportionate, excessive or unreasonable.

The plaintiff is demanding compensation of 500,000 dinars, and the multiple lawsuits and high amounts he is demanding from Pištaljka indicate attempts to financially exhaust this media.

4. Claims represent abuse of rights, i.e. distributive use of authority by public authorities against actors participating in public debate.

Senić is a holder of political and public offices, and by filing lawsuits against the media, he is trying to prevent further media coverage of his actions, thereby abusing legal mechanisms.

5. The lawsuit was filed against (i) an individual, i.e. a responsible media editor and/or a journalist and not (only) against an organization that organized the disputed activity, i.e. a media publisher and/or a journalist who published the news within a public debate.

A lawsuit was also filed against the journalist and editor of Pištaljka, which leads to a greater degree of exposure of the individual to a long and exhausting trial process.

6. The plaintiff, or persons associated with the plaintiff, have previously been or are currently involved in multiple coordinated lawsuits filed against participants in the public debate.

The prosecutor filed as many as four lawsuits against Pištaljka. Multiple lawsuits point to an attempt to bury the newsroom with the aim of dissuading it from dealing with the issue of the activities of this public official.

7. The plaintiff did not initiate out-of-court mechanisms for resolving the disputed matter before filing the lawsuit, or the prosecutor, as a holder of public authority, did not issue a warning or admonishment to the defendant but filed the lawsuit immediately.

Even before this, as in the case of the other three lawsuits that the prosecutor initiated against Pištaljka, there was no warning that it would be filed.