Aleksandar Senić v. Pištaljka (2)

Association "Eutopia" (publisher), Vladimir Radomirović (Editor)

Pištaljka

On September 18, the High Court rejected Aleksandar Senić’s lawsuit and ruled that Pištaljka had published truthful information in the texts that did not violate anyone’s rights and that in this particular case, appropriate attention was applied to the given circumstances, i.e., with due journalistic care, the veracity and completeness of the published information was checked. However, the decision is not final and Senić has the right to appeal. The judge of the High Court in Belgrade, Aco Brajković, states that Pištaljka removed even the smallest possible doubt that the children were personally involved in the company’s operations by pointing out the children’s ages.

Dušan Stojković, who represents Senić, also represents Millenium Team, a firm known for filing lawsuits against the media and activists.

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 put 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 lawsuit was filed because of a text that contained publicly available information about the plaintiff’s assets, more specifically about the operations of companies that were formally owned by his minor sons at that time.

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

The plaintiff requests that the defendant remove the information from its portal even though it is publicly available information of state institutions.

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 filed against both the publisher and the editor of Pištaljka.

6. The plaintiff, or persons related to the plaintiff, in the previous period were or are now participants in multiple and coordinated filing of lawsuits against actors participating in the public debate.

Aleksandar Senić filed several lawsuits against Pištaljka. His lawyer also represents a firm known for numerous actions against the media, which have the characteristics of a SLAPP. Filing multiple lawsuits on different grounds aims to discourage the media from further reporting and public information, as well as to exhaust the defendants’ financial and non-material resources.

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.

The automatic filing of a lawsuit, without a prior attempt to resolve the dispute out of court, puts journalists in a sudden and unexpected position, which is why they have to redirect all their resources to court proceedings instead of pursuing the journalistic profession.

8. On the occasion of the same event in the framework of public debate, several lawsuits were filed against the same defendant on different grounds.

The same prosecutor filed several lawsuits against the newsroom and its journalists regarding the same text. It is interesting that in two disputes regarding the same text, different judgments were made.