Predrag Koluvija v. KRIK (3)
Prosecutor
Predrag Koluvija
Businessman/businesswoman
2024 | Litigation procedure
Predrag Koluvija, the first defendant in the “Jovanjica” case, sued KRIK for the third time, this time because of a text in which it was revealed that even before the “Jovanjica” case, the prosecution suspected him of being involved in the production of marijuana. KRIK revealed that in 2012, the Prosecutor’s Office for Organized Crime suspected Koluvija of being the head of a group that grew marijuana in a laboratory hidden in the basements of three houses in Karaburma. This discovery, like other KRIK texts, is based on official information – police, prosecution and court documents from the “Zeppelin” action, as well as on eyewitness testimony. In the latest lawsuit, Koluvija does not state anywhere what is incorrect in the text. He claims that his presumption of innocence was violated by falsely stating that KRIK wrote that he ran a drug business with his cousin – although it does not say that anywhere in the text of the document.
Basis of submission (according to which article of the law):
Article 200 of the Law on ObligationsDamages/penalty requested:
Koluvija claims that this text hurt his honor and reputation and demands that KRIK pay him 100,000 dinars in compensation.
Defendant
KRIK (Media)
Organization/Media
KRIK
Sector
Crime and corruption
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.
Koluvija is a person with significant financial resources and connections with the top of political power in Serbia. He has been publicly supported several times by top state officials, including the president and former prime minister, which indicates political protection. Such a position allows him to use judicial mechanisms as a means of putting pressure on journalists dealing with topics of public interest.
2. The arguments presented by the prosecutor are partially or completely unfounded.
The lawsuit did not specify exactly which information in the disputed text is incorrect. Koluvia claims that his presumption of innocence was violated because KRIK allegedly claims that he ran a drug business with a relative, although such an allegation does not exist in the text. This indicates the unfoundedness of the lawsuit’s claims.
3. The lawsuit or legal remedy, that is, the request or proposal submitted by the plaintiff is disproportionate, excessive or unreasonable.
Although the monetary claim in this particular lawsuit is not particularly high, the context of multiple lawsuits by the same person against the same actors indicates persistent pressure and restraint of the media. In previous lawsuits, Koluvija demanded millions of dollars, which further contributes to the assessment of disproportionality.
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 lawsuit is directed directly against the research portal KRIK and its editor-in-chief Stevan Dojčinović, and not exclusively against the legal entity as publisher. This indicates an attempt to put personal pressure on individuals involved in journalistic work.
5. The lawsuit is accompanied by an offensive public relations campaign designed to harass, discredit, or intimidate actors participating in the public debate, or is intended to divert attention from the substantive issue at hand.
On several occasions, state officials and pro-government media organized discredit campaigns against KRIK and its journalists, calling them “narco-journalists”, indicating a parallel offensive aimed at intimidation and disqualification.
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.
There are numerous examples of targeting KRIK journalists in regime tabloids, as well as public appearances by politicians in which journalists are linked to crime. Predrag Koluvija’s lawyer, Vladimir Đukanović, is a prominent member of SNS who regularly insults and targets the media in public appearances and on social networks. Đukanović himself filed one of the lawsuits against KRIK.
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.
Koluvija previously filed at least two lawsuits against KRIK, in connection with the reporting on the Jovanjica affair. His lawyer, Vladimir Đukanović, is also the plaintiff in a lawsuit against KRIK. This practice has a coordinated character and is a form of systemic pressure.
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.
Koluvija filed a total of four separate lawsuits against KRIK, all related to publications related to his alleged involvement in criminal activities. It is about different bases that come from the same topic – the public debate about the Jovanjica affair, which is one of the affairs that shook the domestic public the most.
Additional materials
