Nikola Petrović v. Dragana Pećo and Vesna Radojević (2)
Prosecutor
Nikola Petrović
Businessman/businesswoman
2021 | Criminal procedure
In February 2021, KRIK published a story as part of the international investigation “Open Luxembourg” in which they discovered that Nikola Petrović, known as the close friend of the president of the country, was the owner of the offshore company “Faberge advisors” in Luxembourg and that through it he secretly entered into a series of jobs in Serbia – the development of technology for solar energy, the import of medicines and air transport. This last job is still the most important – KRIK found a business connection between the controversial businessman Stanko Subotić Cane and someone close to the Serbian Progressive Party. Namely, thanks to a large international project in which they participated, they found out that Nikola Petrović bought the airline company “Air Posh” from Subotić. It was because of this story that Petrović filed a criminal complaint against KRIK journalists, Dragana Pećo and Vesna Radojević, claiming that they illegally used his personal data. The lawsuit does not specify which personal data Petrović claims were misused. There is no such data in the text, but information about companies that comes from official documents, primarily the business registers of Luxembourg and Serbia. This is not the first lawsuit that Petrović has initiated against KRIK journalists.
Basis of submission (according to which article of the law):
Article 146 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of SerbiaDamages/penalty requested:
Petrović nije tražio novčanu, već zatvorske kazne za novinarke – traži da se Pećo uslovno osudi na dva meseca, a Radojević na mesec dana zatvora.
Defendant
Dragana Pećo, Vesna Radojević (Journalist)
Organization/Media
KRIK
Sector
Crime and corruption
Outcome - Completed
The case became time-barred in 2025 because the trial was not concluded even after four years.
In January 2024, the journalists were acquitted in the criminal proceedings.
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.
The plaintiff is the godfather of the President of Serbia. Petrović was also the director of the public company “Elektromreža Srbije”. Proximity to the top of the government is an indicator of the social capital and influence that the prosecutor has.
2. The arguments presented by the prosecutor are partially or completely unfounded.
The plaintiff filed a criminal complaint against KRIK journalists, claiming that they illegally used his personal data, but the lawsuit does not specify which personal data was allegedly misused. There is no such data in the text, but only information about companies that comes from official documents and business registers of Luxembourg and Serbia was used.
3. The lawsuit or legal remedy, that is, the request or proposal submitted by the plaintiff is disproportionate, excessive or unreasonable.
Prison sentences of one month or two months were requested. This is a clear warning to journalists that they must not deal with topics that concern the plaintiff.
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.
A lawsuit was filed against two journalists of the newsroom, which leads to a greater degree of exposure of journalists to pressure. As this process is about criminal charges, journalists are obliged to appear at the hearings, which directs their resources to deal with the long and exhausting court process, instead of their journalistic profession.
5. 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 plaintiff filed several lawsuits against journalists who follow the business of his companies.
6. 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.
There are no indications that the plaintiff attempted to resolve the dispute through out-of-court measures prior to initiating legal proceedings, such as requests for correction, warnings, or any other form of communication with the defendant.
Additional materials
