Bratislav Gašić v. KRIK
Prosecutor
Bratislav Gašić
Official
2021 | Litigation procedure
Bratislav Gašić sued KRIK for publishing details of the wiretapped conversations from the trial of criminal Zoran Jotić Jotka in which he is mentioned. Gašić claims that because of KRIK’s text, he experienced mental and physical pain, as well as that his reputation and honor were injured, but also that the court should “let the media know that borders exist and must be respected.” Bratislav Gašić sued KRIK for the news “Political connections of the Kruševac criminal group: ‘Gašić with Jotka at the cauldron'” in which the details of the trial were conveyed, and in which the wiretapped conversations released at the trial are mentioned, in which Bratislav Gašić is mentioned in the context of close ties with members of the criminal group. In the courtroom, the conversations that the prosecution eavesdropped on were played as evidence, and in one of them, an accused member of the group can be heard saying that Jotić does not have to worry about his safety because “Bratislav Gašić is at his cauldron.” Gašić claims that KRIK journalist Milica Vojinović, explaining the expression that “being on the cauldron” means “receiving money from someone”, presented a “malicious interpretation of the eavesdropped conversation, which directly hurt his reputation and honor”. Apart from her, he also sued the chief editor of KRIK, Stevan Dojčinović. Before publishing the text, KRIK invited Gašić to comment on the allegations from the courtroom, but he refused to answer for KRIK.
Basis of submission (according to which article of the law):
Article 200 of the Law on ObligationsDamages/penalty requested:
Bratislav Gašić asked to be paid a compensation of 500,000 dinars. Based on the judgment of the Appellate Court from February 20, 2025, KRIK will have to pay Gašić around 140,000 dinars.
Defendant
KRIK (media), Stevan Dojčinović (chief editor), Milica Vojinović (Journalist)
Organization/Media
KRIK
Sector
Crime and corruption
Outcome - In progress
On February 20, 2025, KRIK was finally sentenced according to Gašić’s lawsuit. The judges claim that journalists should have been more tolerant towards Gašić precisely because he is the official who led the BIA, and that journalists are only allowed to convey information, but not to explain to readers what is happening. Judges, as concluded from the verdict, believe that journalists are only allowed to quote what they hear in the courtroom, but not to clarify and explain things to the readers. KRIK will have to pay Gašić a little more than 140,000 dinars. KRIK announced that they will request a review of the verdict before the Supreme Court and that they will file an appeal with the Constitutional Court.
Previous course of the trial: 11/4/2022. KRIK was sentenced according to the lawsuit of Bratislava Gašić for violation of honor and reputation. This judgment was passed after only two hearings. The judge banned most of the questions that the editor of KRIK and his lawyer asked Gašić. During the proceedings, the judge rejected KRIK’s proposal to obtain as evidence the audio recordings of the wiretapped telephone conversations that were played at the trial of Jotić, and which KRIK quoted in the news, as well as the transcript from that trial. In the verdict, the fact that Gašić took the official was an aggravating circumstance for the journalist, and not the opposite, as it should be. The verdict states that KRIK’s text “represents information suitable to harm the honor and reputation of the prosecutor, taking into account first of all the function he performs, which includes the fight against organized crime.” Compensation of RSD 100,000 was awarded. The judge does not dispute the authenticity of the information conveyed in the text, but found it questionable that the text explained criminal slang (the translation means “being on the hook” – being paid by someone; one criminal said that Gašić was on the hook with mobster Jotka). Nevertheless, on May 5, 2023, the Court of Appeal in Belgrade annulled the verdict against KRIK. The case was sent back for a new trial. If KRIK published what those present in the courtroom could see or hear, then the journalists acted in accordance with the principles of the profession, the Court of Appeal concluded. The proceedings will now be conducted by another judge, because the previous judge has progressed.
Present characteristics
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 one of the most important officials of the ruling party. He is currently the head of the Ministry of Defense, and at the time of the lawsuit he was the director of the Security Intelligence Agency (BIA). The political influence and connections he has as well as the financial advantage put him in a privileged position in relation to the defendants.
2. The arguments presented by the prosecutor are partially or completely unfounded.
The prosecutor filed a lawsuit because of the defendant’s text, which conveyed details from the trial.
3. The lawsuit or legal remedy, that is, the request or proposal submitted by the plaintiff is disproportionate, excessive or unreasonable.
Compensation in the amount of 500,000 dinars was requested by the plaintiff. A high severance claim also implies high costs of the procedure, and the sum is intended to financially exhaust the defendant, not to compensate the allegedly caused damage on the side of the plaintiff.
4. Claims represent abuse of rights, i.e. distributive use of authority by public authorities against actors participating in public debate.
BBratislav Gašić, as the holder of numerous positions in his political career so far, uses his position of power in order to deal with journalists who deal with issues of public interest.
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.
The lawsuit was filed against both the journalist and the editor of KRIK. 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.
Although he had the opportunity to make a statement before the publication of the journalist’s text, the Minister refused to do so, but immediately after publication decided to sue the journalist and the editor of KRIK.
7. The plaintiff, or persons associated with the plaintiff, have participated or are currently participating in intimidation, harassment or threats to actors participating in public debate.
Bratislav Gašić was removed from one of his previous ministerial positions after a sexist comment against a journalist. This attitude towards the media, and specifically towards women in the media, indicates a targeted disregard for those who contribute to the public debate with their reporting.
Additional materials
