Bogoljub Karić v. KRIK

KRIK (media), Stevan Dojčinović (chief and responsible editor), Bojana Jovanović (Journalist)

KRIK

KRIK acquitted according to Karić’s lawsuit. KRIK journalists performed their journalistic work with due care and did not harm the well-known Serbian businessman and did not make inadequate claims in the text, ruled the judge of the High Court in Belgrade, Nebojsa Đuričić. Karić has the right to appeal the verdict. In explaining the verdict, Judge Đuričić referred to several domestic and international laws and conventions when explaining the rights and obligations of journalists. Thus, he stated that according to the European Convention on the Protection of Human and Minority Rights, freedom of expression does not mean that the information presented is always positive and inoffensive, but that it offends, shocks and disturbs, because without such information and ideas, a democratic society cannot exist.

Due to the non-appearance of Karić and his lawyer, the trial was postponed several times.

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 a businessman who has been close to the authorities for decades, the owner of numerous legal entities, and his wealth is estimated at hundreds of millions of euros.

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

The plaintiff states that the research, which is based on official documents, caused him mental pain.

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

A compensation claim of 600,000 dinars was requested, which would lead to great financial pressure on the editorial office.

4. 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.

Due to the non-appearance of Karić and his lawyer, the trial was postponed several times. Due to the delay, only one hearing was held in the two years since he filed the lawsuit.

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.

In addition to KRIK, the editor-in-chief and the journalist were also sued. This further individualizes the pressure and complicates the position of the defendants in a legal and professional sense.

6. 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.

Filing a lawsuit without first trying to settle the dispute out of court, or sending a warning, puts the editorial office in an unexpected position and in a situation where they have to direct all their resources to long and exhausting court proceedings, which distracts them from their work.