Aleksandar Senić v. Snežana Đurić

Snežana Đurić (Journalist)

Pištaljka

In progress. In progress. The preliminary hearing began in July 2024. The Basic Court in Topola scheduled a preliminary hearing even before deciding whether it had jurisdiction at all. The work in the proceedings was led by an assistant judge, although he was not appointed as a judge. The preliminary hearing was held on July 15 in Topola. At the hearing, the defense lawyers contested the competence of the Basic Court in Topola to conduct the proceedings, because the High Court in Belgrade is competent for all media disputes, stating that the court in Topola had the same dilemma, which at first declared itself incompetent, but after the High Court in Kragujevac accepted Senić’s appeal against that decision, it scheduled a preliminary hearing without informing the defense lawyers about it. A new hearing is scheduled for October 21, 2024. In October, the High Court in Kragujevac nevertheless decided that the court in Topola was not competent and that the proceedings would be conducted before the High Court in Belgrade.

In this proceeding, in addition to Dušan Stojković, who represents the Millennium Team in disputes against certain media, Aleksandar Senić is also represented by Vladan Joksimović, former deputy director of the Agency for the Prevention of Corruption.

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 lawsuit was filed because of the journalist’s statements in which she recounted the allegations from the text on Pištaljka about the property of official. The statements in the text are supported by official data.

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

The prosecutor 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 prosecutor uses procedural options aimed at increasing the costs of the procedure, e.g. postponement of hearings, non-attendance of witnesses or experts, as well as directing cases to be decided by eligible judges, as well as appointing biased experts, which significantly complicates the procedural position and reduces the chances of the defendant’s success in the proceedings.

The entire trial process is accompanied by a series of irregularities. The procedure was initiated in the Basic Court in Topola, which is not competent to resolve media disputes. Thus, the dispute was initially conducted in the region where Senić was the regional coordinator of the Serbian Progressive Party, and his social and political influence on the entire process could threaten the impartiality of the court.

6. 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 the journalist Pištaljka, which leads to a greater degree of exposure of the individual to a long and exhausting trial process.

7. 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.

The prosecutor filed as many as four lawsuits against Pištaljka. The plaintiff’s attorney in this proceeding also represents a firm known for numerous SLAPP-like actions against the media.

8. The prosecutor 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 immediately filed the lawsuit.

Even before this, the fourth lawsuit he filed against Pištaljka, there was no warning that it would be filed.

9. Due to the same event in the framework of public debate, several lawsuits were filed against the same defendant on different grounds.

Senić filed as many as three lawsuits because of texts about his property in Pištaljka, and one because of texts about his performances in the local assembly.