Nenad Popović v. KRIK (1)

KRIK (Media)

KRIK

The procedure ended in 2019. The lawsuit was rejected. Popović did not appear at the trial 6 times. Judge Slađana Pantović stated in the verdict that KRIK journalists acted with due journalistic attention, that they invited the minister for an interview for a long enough time, that the public’s interest in knowing this information was great, but also that Popović did not appear six times at this trial alone to testify about the mental pain he felt because of the text. The verdict also stated that Popović is in public office, and that therefore he should have more understanding for the fact that the public is interested in knowing about his past and present affairs, as well as that the journalists did not characterize Popović as someone who is engaged in illegal activities. The judge also reminded of the freedom of expression that is guaranteed by the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and added that the text published by KRIK is not offensive and is not in conflict with this article of the convention.

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 a minister in the Government of Serbia and a politician with close ties to the leadership of the Russian Federation. The plaintiff is the owner of as many as 19 companies.

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

The plaintiff sued KRIK because of the claims made in the text, which were based on official documents.

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

A compensation claim of one million dinars was requested, and in addition to this, the plaintiff filed three other lawsuits against KRIK with the same requested amount.

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

The plaintiff, as a holder of public authority, should be exposed to a greater degree of criticism, yet he decided to limit the public debate about his affairs and financial position by abusing legal mechanisms.

5. The prosecutor uses procedural options aimed at increasing the costs of the procedure, e.g. postponement of hearings, non-attendance of witnesses or experts, as well as directing cases to be decided by eligible judges, as well as appointing biased experts, which significantly complicates the procedural position and reduces the chances of the defendant’s success in the proceedings.

The plaintiff did not even appear at scheduled hearings 6 times. At one point, Popović asked the court to temporarily stop all 4 proceedings – although there was no legal basis for this. Proceedings are frozen only due to circumstances such as war and similar emergency situations, and not at the will of officials. Three judges rejected this request of Popović, however, judge Slobodan Keranović accepted it. This judge ruled against KRIK in the case of police officers’ lawsuits.

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 filed as many as four lawsuits against KRIK, and the goal of this is to make the work of journalists more difficult and burden the editorial office with court proceedings.

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.

Initiating a lawsuit without first trying to resolve the disputed issue through out-of-court mechanisms puts the defendants in a situation where they are unprepared and taken aback by the received lawsuit and have to redirect their resources to the court process.

8. On the occasion of the same event in the framework of public debate, several lawsuits were filed against the same defendant on different grounds.

The plaintiff sued the same defendant four times over the same information, a clear attempt to limit public debate on the subject.