Andrej Vučić v. Jelena Bulajić

Nova S (media), Mihailo Jovićević and Ranko Pivljanin (editors) and Jelena Bulajić (Journalist)

Nova S

On May 6, 2026, the Court of Appeal in Belgrade sent back the case of Andrej Vučić’s lawsuit against the editorial office of the newspaper and portal “Nova” for the publication of the column “Andrej’s first billion for our triple jump” for a new civil trial. The judgment of the Appellate Court in Belgrade followed the appeals of the lawyers of “Nova” against the verdict by which the High Court condemned the editorial office and the journalist, and at the same time compensated the brother of the President of Serbia with 100,000 dinars. In the reasoning of the panel of the Appellate Court, it is stated that the first instance, the Higher Court in Belgrade, significantly violated the provisions of the civil procedure, and that the reasons given in the reasoning of that judgment were “unclear and contradictory”, as well as that “no reasons were given” for all important facts. Therefore, in October 2026, the trial will start all over again, before the High Court. While the proceedings in Serbia were returned to the beginning, in Montenegro, on May 27, 2026, a judgment was passed rejecting Andrej Vučić’s request. Namely, Andrej Vučić initiated proceedings against the editor and journalist of Vijesti in Montenegro, but this request was rejected by the first-instance verdict in May 2026 by the decision of the Podgorica Basic Court. By the same decision, Andrej Vučić is obliged to pay the costs of the civil proceedings to the defendants. The judge also rejected the request to remove the text published on January 23, 2024 under the title “Zvonko and Andrej celebrated a billion…” from the “Vijesti” portal. The information was transmitted from this text on the Nova portal, and the court in Podgorica, after reviewing the disputed communication on the Sky application, determined that the correspondence in the text was “credibly transmitted”. The verdict of the Podgorica court states: “the prosecutor, as a public figure who, due to his function, influence, public action or voluntary entry into the public space, must suffer a wider degree of public criticism and public interest and therefore expose himself to public control, and that there is clearly a greater legitimate interest of the public”.
Previous course of proceedings: The main hearing was held on September 25, 2024. The judge allowed only two defense questions to the prosecutor. Andrej Vučić’s lawyer is Vladimir Đukanović, who himself is the plaintiff against research portals.

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 plaintiff is the brother of the president of the state and is himself an influential member of the ruling party.

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

The plaintiff filed a lawsuit due to the transmission of information from the Montenegrin media, based on correspondence from the Sky application.

3. 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.

The lawsuit was filed against the journalist, against the media, and against the editor, which leads to greater exposure of the defendant individuals to pressure, and the goal of such lawsuits is to intimidate journalists and drag them into self-censorship.

4. The lawsuit is accompanied by an offensive public relations campaign designed to harass, discredit or intimidate actors participating in the public debate, or is intended to divert attention from the substantive issue at hand.

In the pro-regime media, several texts were published in which the defendant media is labeled as “tycoon” and in which the work of the defendant media is discredited.

5. The plaintiff, or persons associated with the plaintiff, have participated or are currently participating in intimidating, harassing, or threatening actors involved in the public debate.

At the trials, the prosecutor characterized the defendant’s media as “tycoon-owned”. The prosecutor’s brother, the president, regularly targets the media and independent journalists. The plaintiff’s lawyer is himself a plaintiff against the media.

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.

In connection with the same topic, the prosecutor filed lawsuits against other media as well, specifically against Montenegrin Vijesti, which Andrej Vučić sued for the text in which the communication from the Sky application was transmitted. The plaintiff’s lawyer is himself the plaintiff against a research portal.

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 lawsuit was filed without any prior attempt to settle the disputed matter out of court. Filing a lawsuit leads to exhausting and long processes, the goal of which is to exhaust media resources and deny space for public debate.