OMV v. Nenad Bumbić
Prosecutor
OMV
Company
2022 | Criminal procedure
OMV sued Nenad Bumbić for the video report: “Are OMV MaxxMotion and other premium fuels a scam or do they really benefit your vehicle?” The lawsuit was filed for “Damaging business reputation and creditworthiness” and in connection with Articles 33 and 61 “complicit and extended criminal offense”. In the video report of the portal “Potrošački savetnik” – “Consumer Adviser” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44fYUoZaC0c), claims were made that OMV buys fuel from suppliers from NIS and sells it as premium, TÜV-certified fuel of Austrian quality and that it is therefore supposedly better than fuel at other pumps. In the report, statement was also given by Marko Tasić, who managed OMV pumps for a long time as a franchisor, and he stated that it is a “pure illusion” that the fuel at OMV pumps is better and that OMV actually buys fuel at NIS pumps and sells them under a different name. Marko also showed the shipping slips that supposedly confirm that claim. OMV claims that the Consumer Adviser’s reporting caused their sales to drop. Bumbić states that they sent questions to OMV through several communication channels, and that they informed them of what they were going to publish, thereby giving them opportunity to give their comments, to which OMV did not respond. After the publication of the video report, a lawsuit arrived. “This is not the first report in which we presented evidence that OMV violates the law. We also published a report in which it was stated that OMV was right, not the consumer. OMV was very cooperative on that report,” says Bumbić. In addition to damaging the business reputation and creditworthiness, the lawsuit alleges that the defendant “partnered” with the person whose statement was broadcast in the report with the aim of damaging OMV’s business reputation, and that he continued the commission of the crime by giving statements to other media about the quality of fuel at OMV pumps. In December 2025, the Ministry of Trade also submitted to the court a report on the inspection carried out over OMV for an economic offense due to the marketing of gasoline that did not meet the prescribed quality even for basic fuels, and from the document it can be seen that OMV did procure fuel from NIS. The market inspection filed a complaint against OMV for economic offense back in 2017 due to the marketing of fuel of improper quality. The application was rejected by the competent prosecutor’s office with the explanation that OMV could not influence the quality of the fuel because it was procured from another supplier (from NIS). Practically, the report of the Ministry of Trade is another confirmation of the allegations and statements from the video report, whereby the lawsuit of OMV against Nenad Bumbić clearly takes the form of malicious proceedings against the defendant with the aim of preventing public debate on this topic.
Basis of submission (according to which article of the law):
Article 239 of the Criminal CodeDamages/penalty requested:
The plaintiff requests a prison sentence for the defendant.
Defendant
Nenad Bumbić (Other)
Organization/Media
"Consumer Protection" Association, "Consumer Adviser" portal
Sector
Public information
Outcome - In progress
In progress.
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.
Yes. The OMV is a large European company that has over 60 gas stations in Serbia. The company’s annual revenues are measured in billions of euros globally according to publicly available data, which indicates an undeniable power imbalance.
2. The arguments presented by the plaintiff are partially or completely unfounded.
The OMV claims that because of the video report, there was a drop in sales, even though according to data from the APR, in the year of filing the lawsuit, they had a higher income than in the previous year. Also, the lawsuit did not explain how one report of a local portal could have affected the drop in sales, taking into account that numerous other, global events (the war in Ukraine) could have been a decisive factor if the drop in sales occurred. The report is the result of investigative journalism, the information is supported by facts, and the company was given the opportunity to make a statement, which could have been an integral part of the report if they agreed. The report of the Ministry of Trade from 2025 on inspection supervision indicates that state authorities have already dealt with the issue of fuel quality at OMV pumps and that the Market Inspection has already submitted a report on this issue. The Ministry’s report is another confirmation that the “Consumer Advisor” published facts in video report.
3. The lawsuit or legal remedy, that is, the request or proposal submitted by the plaintiff is disproportionate, excessive or unreasonable.
The claim is excessive, since it is an objective video report and the other party had the opportunity to speak. A small portal could not have caused so much damage to an international company and any problem could have been solved out of court. The prison sentence sought by the OMV is therefore unreasonable and excessive.
4. Claims represent abuse of rights, i.e. distributive use of authority by public authorities against actors participating in public debate.
In the case of causing damage, civil proceedings can be initiated, but in this case the plaintiff opted for criminal proceedings. Criminal proceedings are a greater mistreatment and imply that the plaintiff must prove intent, which is very difficult to prove. For this reason, the choice of procedure leads to greater mistreatment of the defendant.
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.
Yes. A lawsuit was filed against an individual due to a contribution on a local portal.
6. 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 immediately filed the lawsuit.
Yes. The lawsuit was filed immediately after the publication of the report, and the plaintiff had the opportunity to present his comment before the publication of the video report, which they refused to do.
