Police officers v. Stevan Dojčinović and Bojana Jovanović (2)

Stevan Dojčinović, Bojana Jovanović (Editor)

KRIK

The KRIK appeal process is ongoing. KRIK was convicted in the first instance. Belgrade High Court Judge Slobodan Keranović condemned the journalists of KRIK for the text in which they announced that several SLAPP lawsuits had been filed against the newsroom, including the one filed by the leaders of the Police Witness Protection Unit. This judgment is of first instance and KRIK appealed it to the Court of Appeal in Belgrade.

By the way, judge Keranović is known to the public for the fact that he promptly condemned NIN following the lawsuit of the then Minister of Police, Nebojša Stefanović. The “021” portal also complained about Keranović’s verdict when he imposed a large fine on them in the case where they were sued for publishing the photo. The “Pistaljka” portal also filed a disciplinary report against this judge to the High Council of the Judiciary, claiming that he delayed the decision to protect a whistleblower. Keranović was previously a judge in the proceedings against KRIK led by former minister Nenad Popović. Keranović then accepted Popović’s unjustified request to freeze the proceedings.

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 prosecutors are the managers of the police Witness Protection Unit, and their position within the security services brings with them greater social influence and the possibility of exerting pressure on the defendants.

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

The lawsuit was filed because of the text about the SLAPP proceedings against KRIK and in which, as one of the examples, the previous lawsuit against KRIK that the plaintiffs filed, which they lost in court, was cited. Filing another lawsuit is designed to pressure and attempt to punish because of the previous lawsuit plaintiffs lost.

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

The awarded penalty that the defendants must pay in the name of compensation for mental pain and expenses is unreasonably high for the nature of the dispute that was fought.

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 defendants are the media, the deputy editor and the responsible editor.

5. 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.

And this lawsuit arrived unannounced, without any previous attempt to settle the dispute out of court.

6. Due to the same event in the framework of the public debate, several lawsuits were filed against the same defendant on different grounds.

The plaintiff has already filed a lawsuit against the same defendants, and this lawsuit refers to the text that talks about the first lawsuit. The multiple processes that are being conducted against the defendant are aimed at flooding the editorial office with lawsuits and preventing them from further work and reporting to the public on topics that are of public interest.