Dijana Hrkalović v. KRIK

KRIK (media), Stevan Dojčinović (Editor)

KRIK

The judge of the High Court in Belgrade, Dragana Stanojković, rejected the lawsuit in December 2024, stating that the journalists acted with due care, that they did not violate the presumption of innocence, nor did they harm Hrkalović’s honor and reputation. “The court had in mind that this is a person who was a state official in a high position, so she is obliged to show a greater degree of tolerance towards information and criticisms related to her, compared to individuals whose work is not public or exposed to public opinion, as well as to show a greater degree of tolerance to the public’s interest in being informed about her actions,” the judge’s reasoning states. In the verdict, the judge referred to the fact that the texts were written by investigative journalists. “It should be borne in mind that this is about investigative journalism, the goal of the texts was not designed to produce negative consequences for the plaintiff, (…) that the journalists had a legitimate goal, and the issue is of public interest,” the verdict reads. This verdict was confirmed at the end of March by the Court of Appeal in Belgrade, which concluded that KRIK journalists “did not violate the duty of journalistic attention in reporting and that they checked the information in question with due care.” Hrkalović did not appear at the trials.

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.

Hrkalović is a public figure connected to political and social circles, which creates a power imbalance in relation to the investigative media outlet KRIK. The plaintiff was a state secretary in the Ministry of Internal Affairs (MUP) and held other high positions in the security apparatus.

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

All allegations in the disputed texts are based on official indictment documents, indicating that the claims are legitimate and professionally conveyed, with no grounds for defamation.

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

The claim for damages amounting to 700,000 dinars represents a disproportionate and excessive legal remedy in relation to legitimate media work and public interest.

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 media outlet and its chief editor.

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.

The plaintiff is also linked to threats directed at journalists.Tužilja se dovodi u vezu s pretnjama upućenim novinarima.

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.

There are no indications that the plaintiff attempted to resolve the dispute through out-of-court measures prior to initiating legal proceedings, such as requests for correction, warnings, or any other form of communication with the defendant.