Milan Radonjić v. Aleksandar Olenik

Aleksandar Olenik (Other)

The court stated that the publication of lawyer Olenik does not represent a violation of honor, because it refers to an issue of exceptional public importance – the integrity of the judiciary in the context of cases of political murders, and thus the lawsuit was dismissed. The court concluded that the plaintiff did not prove that the publications caused an objective decrease in his reputation, but relied on a personal feeling of injury, which according to the law is not enough for the speech to be sanctioned. In the explanation of the verdict, it is emphasized that in a democratic society “freedom of speech and media includes the right to critically review the work of public institutions and public office holders”, as well as that commenting on judgments and judges cannot be treated as an attack on personality if it is driven by the public interest.

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 prosecutor is a former member of the security service, a position that carries with it significant connections with key authorities and political power holders in society.

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

Commenting on the trial process in the case of the murder of journalist Slavko Ćuruvija is part of a wider public debate on the safety of journalists and unsolved cases of politically motivated murders. The defendant is not the only one who commented on the verdict in this case, and the disputed post on the social network is part of a wider public debate that has been going on for years on this issue, and the claim that one of the comments/status on social networks in connection with this case can cause a violation of honor is not founded.

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

The requested amount of half a million dinars with statutory default interest is aimed at financially exhausting the defendant and is an excessive request in relation to the basis of the claim.

4. 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 the lawyer as an individual, actor/participant in the public debate.

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.

Those acquitted in the case of the murder of Slavko Ćuruvija filed several lawsuits against the media and foundations for expressing their views on this verdict.

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.

Those acquitted in the case of the murder of Slavko Ćuruvije, after the acquittal, started an offensive campaign, and initiated lawsuits against those who spoke about this verdict as disputed. It is a clear intention of the plaintiffs to intimidate and silence the actors of the public debate and prevent further dealing with this still unsolved case.

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.

It is not known that the plaintiff tried to resolve the dispute through extrajudicial mechanisms.