Marko Kričak v. Nikolina Sinđelić

Nikolina Sinđelić (Activist)

The first hearing is scheduled for mid-February 2026. year.

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 plaintiff is the commander of the special unit, also a former member of the Security and Information Agency. His career progression is linked to the leading figures of the ruling party. The significant positions he occupies in the security structures indicate a personality with strong influence and the ability to influence potential internal processes that would lead to an independent investigation into his actions in the case of arresting citizens in front of the Government budilding.

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

The defendant student presented information about the violence she was exposed to, which was confirmed by some of the other detainees on the same evening who were also exposed to violence by members of the JZO.

3. 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 a student who spoke about the gender-based violence she suffered. The goal of filing a lawsuit against the student is to silence her and discourage her from further testifying in this case.

4. The lawsuit is accompanied by an offensive public relations campaign designed to harass, discredit or intimidate actors participating in the public debate, or is intended to divert attention from the substantive issue at hand.

For weeks, a campaign was conducted against Nikolina in the pro-regime media, in which false information about her private life was presented. Nikolina was also the target of revenge pornography, when her intimate photo taken when Nikolina was a minor was published in the media. The photos were shown on pro-regime cable television, and this kind of campaign, apart from being another way of humiliating the student and gender-based violence against her, also represents a gross violation of the law.

5. The plaintiff, or persons associated with the plaintiff, have participated or are currently participating in intimidating, harassing, or threatening actors involved in the public debate.

The prosecutor is the head of the notorious JZO, which during the period of intense protests rudely and unfoundedly detained citizens. Several students and citizens spoke publicly about the mistreatment they were subjected to during their detention.

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 plaintiff previously filed a lawsuit against the MP and retired MUP colonel, due to her appearance on a podcast where she said that such a person should not be in one of the leading positions in the MUP.

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 prior notice, and the goal is to once again put pressure on Nikolina and potentially other students and citizens who would publicly or in court proceedings testify about the violence they were subjected to by Kričak and other members of the JZO.