Aleksandar Senić v. Pištaljka

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

Pištaljka

The appeal procedure is ongoing. The conviction for Pištaljka was handed down on February 2, 2024, and Pištaljka appealed the verdict. In the verdict, the judge states that Radomirović admitted that the text lacked journalistic attention, even though it is not written anywhere in the minutes of the sessions and even though Radomirović stated the complete opposite at the trial. Judge Radun Bubanja of the Higher Court in Belgrade also ordered that four sentences be deleted from the text. The defendants are obliged to pay the minor sons of Aleksandar Senić 10,000 dinars each with statutory default interest and to pay them 230,600 dinars for the costs of the litigation.

Dušan Stojković, who represents Senić, also represents Millenium Team in disputes against the media. In December 2023, ownership of the company returns to father of Aleksandar Senić and his wife Marija, and no longer to his children.

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 defendant puts him in a privileged position, but due to 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 assets of the plaintiff and his minor children. Pištaljka published information obtained from state authorities: that the plots that the state leased in 2019 two years later became the property of two companies, whose owners at that time were Senić’s minor sons.

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

Compensation of 20,000 dinars with default interest is sought on behalf of the minors on whose behalf the lawsuits were filed, as well as 230,600 dinars to the plaintiffs for the costs of the litigation, all due to the publication of publicly available data.

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 functions, and by filing a lawsuit 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, one of the two prosecutors, filed several lawsuits against Pištaljka. His lawyer also represents another company in 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 media for the same text. Multiple and coordinated lawsuits indicate the plaintiff’s intention to prevent actors from participating in the public debate.