Jelena Tanasković v. KRIK (2)

KRIK (Media)

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.

Jelena Tanasković is a former minister, an official with significant political connections and social influence. Given her position and the public functions she held, as well as the fact that she is suing investigative journalists who are already suffering systemic pressure through multiple lawsuits, the imbalance of power she uses in order to pressure is evident.

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

The plaintiff is suing KRIK for the second time because they published the information that she sued them. This practically seeks to prohibit public information and reporting on malicious actions conducted against the media. Tanasković also states that she is presented as a criminal because she is written about by KRIK, which deals with crime and corruption, which indicates the baseless and unfounded argumentation of the filed lawsuit.

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

The plaintiff is seeking damages in the amount of one million dinars due to the text informing the public about the proceedings against journalists and the media. The amount requested is not in accordance with the basis of filing the lawsuit. Such a high compensation claim is aimed at causing material damage to the defendant in order to stop writing and informing the public.

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

The use of court proceedings in this second proceeding initiated by Tanasković against KRIK is aimed at flooding the editorial office with lawsuits and distracting journalists from their profession. Tanasković is abusing the legal system in order to dissuade journalists from writing about her as a former public office holder.

5. 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.

This is the second lawsuit that Tanasković files against KRIK within a month. It shows a pattern of multiple and potentially coordinated attempts to silence the newsroom through legal processes.

6. The prosecutor 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 immediately filed the lawsuit.

According to the available data, there were no previous attempts to settle the dispute out of court. The lawsuit was filed directly, which indicates the absence of will to resolve the dispute without judicial pressure.

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.

KRIK was sued twice in this particular case. This is Jelena Tanacković’s second lawsuit against KRIK and it followed after KRIK wrote about the fact that Tanacaković had already sued them.