Dušanka Đorđević and Aleksandar Đorđević v. Bojana Pavlović and Stevan Dojčinović (1)

journalist Bojana Pavlović, Stevan Dojčinović (editor) (Journalist)

KRIK

The next hearing is scheduled for April 2026.
year. The first-instance proceedings are ongoing. The trial began in November 2024. Court of Appeals judge Dušanka Đorđević testified at the trial on June 11, in which she falsely stated, among other things, that journalists had wrongly transmitted data from the cadastre, as well as that they threatened her and her family’s safety. At the hearing in November 2025, attorney Đorđević said that he allegedly received threats of lynching and claimed that it had something to do with KRIK’s database, even though KRIK’s database does not contain any information that could endanger Đorđević’s safety.

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.

Judge Đorđević claims in the lawsuits that journalists violated her privacy by publishing her name and position at the Court of Appeal in Belgrade, as well as how many properties she owns with her husband, although the database does not contain the addresses of those properties.

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

A high compensation claim in the amount of 760,000 dinars was requested, which also represents a significant financial pressure that aims to exhaust the resources of this investigative media.

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 was filed against both the journalist and the editor of KRIK, which increases the pressure on individuals within organizations and 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.

The plaintiff and her husband filed two lawsuits against KRIK for the same base. Filing two lawsuits at the same time is a sign of a coordinated intention to discourage and withdraw the defendant from further reporting and informing the public.

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 prosecutors filed another lawsuit against the same defendants due to similar allegations about the publication of private data, and thus two proceedings are being conducted regarding the same text, one civil, the other criminal.