Dušanka Đorđević and Aleksandar Đorđević v. Bojana Pavlović and Stevan Dojčinović (2)

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

KRIK

First-instance proceedings in progress. During the trial, there was a change in the acting judge (Dušica Ristić is now leading the proceedings). The trial was held on April 15, continuing in early July. The prosecutors offered to waive the monetary compensation if the defendants at the first hearing admit the violation of rights and remove the data and publish the verdict. KRIK refused this because it would mean that they had given up their profession. Judge Đorđević is known for being a member of the panel that acquitted those accused of murdering journalist Slavko Ćuruvija. She was also a member of the council that in 2021 overturned the conviction of the former president of Grocka, Dragoljub Simonović, for setting fire to the house of journalist Milan Jovanović. She is also known for other acquittals in media-covered cases. During the KRIK trial, the prosecutor’s lawyers pointed out in their opening statements that the journalists processed the personal data of the judge without authorization with the intention of linking her to crime and corruption, as well as that the editor of KRIK is a “dangerous person”, and as evidence they attached texts from the pro-regime tabloid Informer in which the editor of KRIK was labeled a “French spy”, and which the court had previously, in a separate proceeding, determined to be untrue.

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.

It is particularly worrisome that the judge in this case demands a 10-month prison sentence for investigative journalists and a ban on practicing their profession, which is an open invitation to stifle freedom of media and expression.

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 the organizations to prevent them from continuing to practice their profession.

6. The plaintiff, or persons related to the plaintiff, in the previous period were or are now participants in multiple and coordinated filing of lawsuits against actors participating 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.