Goran Vesić v. Zoran Alimpić

Zoran Alimpić (Other)

The next hearing is scheduled for June 8, 2026. 06. 2026. Until February 2026, the hearing was scheduled 10 times in the First Basic Court in Belgrade. The defendant states that he appeared in court every time with his legal representative and that the plaintiff did not appear even once. Each time, a representative of the Aleksić law office came and presented a justification for the plaintiff, which the court accepted each time.

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.

Yes. Goran Vesić is a former minister and, at the time of the initiation of the lawsuit, the deputy mayor of Belgrade. He was the holder of the highest public office for years, which gives him a political advantage and greater power and influence compared to the defendant.

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

Yes. The comments made by the defendant refer to the criticism of a public official in the performance of his duties, and officials are obliged to suffer a greater degree of criticism, therefore the arguments are unfounded.

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

Yes. Given that the arguments are unfounded, the request for material compensation is unreasonable and excessive.

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

Yes. At the time of filing the lawsuit, the plaintiff was the deputy mayor of Belgrade. Filing of lawsuits by public authorities against actors participating in public debate who express legitimate criticism is an example of abuse of authority by public authorities.

5. The prosecutor uses procedural options aimed at increasing the costs of the procedure, e.g. postponement of hearings, non-attendance of witnesses or experts, as well as directing cases to be decided by eligible judges, as well as appointing biased experts, which significantly complicates the procedural position and reduces the chances of the defendant’s success in the proceedings.

Yes. The hearing was held 10 times in 4 years, and the prosecutor did not appear even once. In this way, the resources of the defendant, which consistently approaches the process, are directly exhausted.

6. 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.

Yes, a lawsuit has been filed against an individual because of publicly expressed criticism.

7. 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.

Yes. The prosecutor is a member of the ruling party, whose officials filed numerous lawsuits against actors, participants in the public debate. In addition, the Aleksić law office also represented Minister Nenad Popović in several lawsuits that he initiated against the research portal KRIK, and the lawyer Aleksić himself even sued a local portal 7 times.