Milorad Pantić Luki v. Jelena Mihajlović

Jelena Mihajlović (Activist)

By the decision of the Basic Court in Ruma from October 8, 2025, the prosecutor lost the dispute he initiated against Jelena Mihajlović.

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 leads the local branch of the ruling party, and his political and social influence is further amplified by the fact that this is a small community.

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

Even though the Commissioner for the Protection of Equality found that the children were exposed to discrimination because of their parents’ political views, this did not prevent the local official from suing the mother who went public with the story of the revenge carried out on her, but also on the children of other parents – farmers who participated in the protests.

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

Article 170, paragraph 2 of the Criminal Code prescribes a fine for the defendant of up to 450,000 dinars. This amount is exceptionally high, especially considering that the defendant is a farmer, and that incomes in this sector of the economy are generally low.

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

Milorad Pantić filed a lawsuit against a woman who spoke publicly about how this small town operates and about the power concentrated in the hands of a local official. The aim of such a lawsuit is to silence participants in public debate and to suppress any form of criticism.

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 a woman who pointed out the discrimination her minor child was subjected to. Filing a lawsuit against a parent also serves as a threat and a warning to other parents, should they dare to speak out publicly against the actions of the local official.

6. The plaintiff, or persons associated with the plaintiff, have participated or are currently participating in intimidation, harassment or threats to actors participating in public debate.

The plaintiff arrived at court hearings accompanied by 10 to 15 men. Such behavior is an obvious attempt at intimidation and a threat toward the defendant, suggesting that she could potentially be subjected to violence.

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.

The local SNS official had previously filed a lawsuit against a member of the Democratic Party, accusing him of being the “instigator of a smear campaign” against him.

8. 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.

Pantić sued the mother of the discriminated girl without prior warning.