Jelena Tanasković v. KRIK
Prosecutor
Jelena Tanasković
Official
2025 | Litigation procedure
Jelena Tanasković, former Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management and director of “Railway Infrastructure” and one of the suspects in the case of the roof falling in Novi Sad, sued the editor and journalist of KRIK and is demanding compensation of one million dinars. Tanasković filed the lawsuit because of a text stating that her former employer filed a criminal complaint against her on suspicion of financial crime, and that the complaint was dismissed after a report by the police department led by Ninoslav Cmolić, the husband of Tanasković’s friend and minister Irene Vujović. The story mentions publicly available information that a criminal complaint was filed against Tanasković due to suspicion of financial malfeasance in the private company she ran as a director. The criminal complaint was filed by the company where she was employed and from which they claimed that Tanasković had damaged them for 200 million dinars. The Prosecutor’s Office for Organized Crime rejected the report after a police report signed by Ninoslav Cmolić, now head of the UKP, husband of the Minister of Environmental Protection Irene Vujović – who is a long-time friend and former boss of Tanasković. Tanasković also states in the lawsuit things that are not written anywhere in KRIK’s text, such as that she “encouraged Cmolić to abuse his official position” and that she “influenced the police and the prosecutor’s office not to do their job” business”. The text clearly states that the private company claimed in the criminal complaint that Tanasković committed a crime, and not that she was engaged in financial crime, and that the complaint was rejected by the prosecution. Tanasković claims that KRIK injured her honor and reputation and the presumption of innocence and demands that she be paid one million dinars. Tanasković claims that KRIK injured her honor and reputation and the presumption of innocence and demands that she be paid one million dinars.
Basis of submission (according to which article of the law):
Article 200 of the Law on ObligationsDamages/penalty requested:
Tanasković claims that KRIK injured her honor and reputation and the presumption of innocence and demands that she be paid one million dinars.
Defendant
KRIK (Journalist)
Organization/Media
KRIK
Sector
Crime and corruption
Outcome - In progress
In progress.
Present characteristics
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. Considering her position and the public functions she held, as well as the fact that she is suing investigative journalists who are already suffering systemic pressures 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 lawsuit states claims that are not found in the KRIK text, such as that Tanasković allegedly “incited Cmolić to abuse his official position” or that she “influenced the police and the prosecutor’s office not to do their job.” These claims represent a misattribution of content that was not presented, which indicates the baselessness of the claim. The text provides information based on the proceedings initiated and concluded before the judicial system in Serbia and is based on facts.
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 that relies on available information. The requested amount 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 critically about the holders of public authority.
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 case appears to be an attempt to limit legitimate journalistic reporting on topics of public importance. Instead of answering essential questions of public accountability, Tanasković uses the legal system as a means of narrative control. Holders of public authority, i.e. public officials, should suffer a greater degree of criticism. The intention of the lawsuit filed by the plaintiff who is also a holder of public authority is an attempt to prevent reporting that is in the public interest.
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 Stevan Dojčinović, editor of KRIK, and journalist Bojana Jovanović, and not only against the editorial office. This further individualizes the pressure and complicates the position of the defendants in a legal and professional sense.
6. Due to the same event in the framework of the public debate, several lawsuits were filed against the same defendant on different grounds.
KRIK was sued twice in this particular case. Jelena Tanacković’s second lawsuit against KRIK followed after KRIK wrote about the fact that Tanacaković had already sued them.
Additional materials
Tanasković ponovo tužila KRIK – jer smo objavili da nas je tužila
