Predrag Koluvija v. KRIK

KRIK (media), Stevan Dojčinović (Editor-in-Chief and Responsible Editor) (Media)

KRIK

The proceedings concluded in 2023, and KRIK was found liable. The Court of Appeals upheld the lower court’s ruling that KRIK had violated the presumption of innocence of Predrag Koluvija. According to the verdict, KRIK is required to pay Koluvija 30,000 dinars in damages for emotional distress and 59,800 dinars in court costs. However, taking into account attorney fees and court fees, the total cost of the trial for KRIK amounts to approximately €2,000.
The panel of judges, presided over by Judge Zorica Đaković, found that by referring to Koluvija in the news article as an “accused drug boss” and mentioning a “marijuana plantation,” KRIK labeled him as the perpetrator of a criminal offense “despite no court decision confirming such.” This ruling by the Court of Appeals confirmed the previous decision rendered by Higher Court judge Bojana Čogurić.

One of Koluvija’s attorneys, (Svetislav Bojić) who is himself on trial for endangering the safety of journalist (Jelena Zorić) announced the possibility of additional lawsuits against KRIK. He also stated that they “have nothing against the media, but do have something against certain journalists.” Another of Koluvija’s lawyers is Vladimir Đukanović, a prominent member of the ruling Serbian Progressive Party (SNS), who at the time of filing the lawsuit was a member of parliament, chairman of the Parliamentary Committee for the Control of Security Services, and a member of the High Judicial Council.
During the trial, Judge Bojana Čogurić reportedly did not allow KRIK’s attorney to ask Koluvija nearly any questions, raising concerns about the fairness of 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 plaintiff, Predrag Koluvija, is a well-known businessman with significant financial and social resources, while the defendant, KRIK, is an investigative media outlet and non-governmental organization funded through donations. This indicates a clear imbalance of power in favor of the plaintiff.

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

KRIK used information from official indictments and court proceedings in the “Jovanjica 2” case in its reporting. The label “narco-boss” was used within the context of journalistic coverage of the trial, not as a statement of a final conviction, which indicates that the claim of reputational harm has limited merit.

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

Filing a lawsuit over terms used in public and media discourse to describe a defendant in a major criminal case, which are based on publicly available court documents, constitutes a disproportionate legal response to journalistic reporting.

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 aims to sanction journalists for publishing information from the court proceedings against the plaintiff, using the legal system to discourage further reporting on a matter of significant public interest.

The plaintiff, or persons associated with the plaintiff, have participated or are currently participating in intimidating, harassing, or threatening actors involved in the public debate.

The plaintiff is currently undergoing a court trial where he is accused of being the leader of an organized criminal group. He has repeatedly resorted to judicial pressure against journalists covering his case. Inspectors connected to his case have received direct threats.

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 has filed multiple lawsuits against media outlets and investigative journalists covering his case.

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.

This was also the case here.

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 filed another lawsuit against the same media outlet and editor based on the same allegations made by the defendant.