Relja Ognjenović v. Slavica Plavšić

Slavica Plavšić (Other)

In July 2025, the court ruled that the doctor should pay 210,000 dinars because she allegedly caused mental pain and suffering to Ognjenović with her satirical texts, damaged his reputation and honor.

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.

Relja Ognjenović, public official and member of SNS, is one of the most prominent officials of the ruling party in Belgrade. He stood out in public because of his “work in the field” and conflicts with citizens on the street who would protest because of the presence of SNS stands. He was also seen among the masked people in Pionirski Park before the big March civil and student protest. As a holder of power, he uses his political influence and power to deal with critics, specifically with a critic who is a pensioner.

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

The prosecutor claims that the satirical text hurt his honor and reputation and caused mental pain and suffering, although it is not clear which parts of the text are allegedly disputed.

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

The director of the PIO fund demands that the pensioner pay him 300,000 dinars. The court ruled that the defendant should pay 210,000 dinars, which far exceeds the pensioner’s ability to pay.

4. Claims represent abuse of rights, i.e. distributive use of authority by public authorities against actors participating in public debate.

The holder of public authority is abusing his position and influence to silence the author of the text, who writes in a critical and satirical manner about the position of pensioners in the country, as well as the state of the health care system.

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.

The lawsuit was filed against the author, as well as against the portal that published the two articles. In this way, the prosecutor is trying to exert double pressure, on the author to stop writing similar texts, but also on the media to give up dealing with topics of public interest in the future.

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.

It is not known that the prosecutor has initiated extrajudicial dispute resolution mechanisms. The automatic filing of a lawsuit without warning is intended to catch the defendant by surprise and divert all of his/her resources to dealing with a long and exhausting legal process.