Goran Vesić v. Jelena Jelovac

Jelena Jelovac (Journalist)

Nova.rs

The High Court in Belgrade, specifically Judge Nebojša Đuričić, ruled on August 12, 2026 that Vesić’s lawsuit was rejected, with the explanation that the published text deals with issues of public interest, that it is based on a politician’s statement, but also supported by publicly available information. The court also emphasized that the prosecutor was mentioned as a public servant, and found that the text encourages public debate on issues important to citizens. In addition, the court considers that, as a high-ranking official, Vesić is obliged to endure more criticism than an ordinary citizen. The first-instance verdict became final, after Vesić’s defense attorney decided not to appeal it. The former minister therefore paid slightly more than 232,000 dinars in court costs. In this case, as well as in other proceedings against the Nova.rs portal, the former minister was represented by Novi Sad lawyer Nemanja Aleksić, who himself filed lawsuits against this media.

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.

At the time of filing the lawsuit, the plaintiff held the position of deputy mayor, and later held a ministerial position. As a holder of public authority, he was obliged to endure a greater degree of public criticism. The imbalance of power is reflected in the high state function of the plaintiff and the position of power he occupies.

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

The text contains publicly available information on the number of contracts that the mentioned companies concluded with state bodies. Also, the text conveys the statements of an opposition politician. Examining topics of public interest is the task of professional media, and filing lawsuits for defamation of honor and reputation stifles public debate.

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

Given that the lawsuit itself is based on unfounded arguments, any request is therefore excessive because the lawsuit itself makes the work of the media difficult and prevents debate on topics of public interest.

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

As a holder of public office, the plaintiff is obliged to endure a greater degree of criticism and not to use his position of power to deal with critical voices.

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.

A lawsuit was filed against the journalist and the editor-in-chief, which increases the pressure on individuals.

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 lawyer representing Vesić in this proceeding is also the plaintiff against Nova.rs. Vesić himself previously filed lawsuits against the media and individuals, participants in the public debate.

7. The plaintiff 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 filed the lawsuit immediately.

The lawsuit was filed without any prior attempt to settle the disputed matter out of court.