Dušanka Đorđević and Aleksandar Đorđević v. Bojana Jovanović and Jelena Radivojević (3)

Bojana Jovanović, Jelena Radivojević (Journalist)

KRIK

In progress.

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 plaintiffs are the judge of the Court of Appeal and her lawyer husband. The fact that the judge uses legal mechanisms to put pressure on the journalists who reported on her is particularly worrying, because the judicial system should protect citizens from abuse of rights and not the holder of the judicial branch of power abusing it in this way.

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

The lawsuit alleges that the data violated the privacy of the plaintiffs, although the database does not list the addresses of the real estate owned by the plaintiffs. Also, all data that has been published is publicly available or was obtained based on a request for access to information of public importance.

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

What is particularly concerning is that the judge in this case is demanding a 10-month prison sentence for investigative journalists and a ban on performing their profession — an open attempt to suppress freedom of the media and expression. The very fact that a judge is seeking prison sentences for journalists in her lawsuits clearly shows that the goal of such actions is to silence journalists and ultimately shut down the database. This would represent a severe blow to the transparency of such information, which is entirely public and accessible, and would open the door to further forms of censorship against journalists.

4. Claims represent abuse of rights, i.e. distributive use of authority by public authorities against actors participating in public debate.

The plaintiff, as the holder of the judicial branch of government, is grossly abusing her position as someone who has influence in the justice system. The fact that the proceedings were initiated by a judge of the Court of Appeal puts additional pressure on the judge conducting the proceedings.

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 has been filed against both the journalist and the editor of KRIK, which increases the pressure on individuals within the organization, aiming to prevent them from continuing to practice their profession.

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.

The plaintiff and her husband have already filed two lawsuits against KRIK over the same database. This third lawsuit is an extension of the ongoing criminal proceedings that the Đorđevićs are already pursuing against KRIK’s journalists. The multiple lawsuits indicate the plaintiffs’ intent to overwhelm the newsroom with legal actions, which directly prevents journalists from doing their work, as they must divert their resources to preparing their defense and attending court hearings.

7. On the occasion of the same event in the framework of public debate, several lawsuits were filed against the same defendant on different grounds.

The same plaintiffs have already filed two lawsuits against KRIK journalists over the same database.
The international Coalition Against SLAPP Lawsuits in Europe (CASE) labeled the first two lawsuits (civil and criminal) in which the Đorđevićs seek monetary compensation, imprisonment and a ban on journalism as “classic SLAPP lawsuits” that are filed without any basis and whose goal is to put pressure on journalists to stop reporting on certain topics. The international Coalition Against SLAPP Lawsuits in Europe (CASE) labeled the first two lawsuits (civil and criminal) in which the Đorđevićs seek monetary compensation, imprisonment and a ban on journalism as “classic SLAPP lawsuits” that are filed without any basis and whose goal is to put pressure on journalists to stop reporting on certain topics.