Sanja Petrić v. Dragana Arsić

Dragana Arsić (Activist)

Movement “Defend the Forests of Fruška Gora”

The procedure was discontinued at the discretion of the plaintiff, who decided to cease prosecution.

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.

Sanja Petrić, together with her husband Nebojša Petrić, is co-owner of Galens Invest, one of the leading investors in construction and urbanism in Novi Sad. Her social and economic position, combined with the political influence that Galens exerts through its relations with public authorities, indicates a significant power imbalance compared to activist Dragana Arsić, who at the time of initiating the proceedings was a civic activist without institutional protection. The lawsuit appears to be an attempt to exert pressure on a participant in the public debate about the protection of natural resources.

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

During the criminal proceedings, the plaintiffs themselves stated at the hearing that their business operations were not harmed, thereby disputing their own claim that their business reputation and creditworthiness had been damaged. This circumstance indicates partial or complete lack of merit in the arguments on which the lawsuit is based.

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

Filing a criminal complaint, along with a demand for a prison sentence, constitutes a disproportionate response to the expression of opinions on matters of public interest.

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

The filing of a criminal complaint by a person closely associated with the company that is the subject of legitimate public criticism indicates an abuse of the legal system aimed at intimidating the activist and suppressing public debate on environmental protection.

5. The lawsuit is filed (also) against an individual, namely the responsible editor of the media outlet and/or journalist, and not (only) against the organization that organized the disputed activity, or the publisher of the media outlet and/or journalist who published the news as part of the public debate.

The lawsuit was filed directly against an individual, activist Dragana Arsić.

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.

Sanja Petrić, together with her husband Nebojša Petrić, has filed multiple lawsuits—both criminal and civil—against Dragana Arsić within a short period of time.

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.

There is no available information indicating that Sanja Petrić attempted to contact the activist prior to filing the lawsuit in order to resolve the dispute out of court. The absence of any attempt at an amicable settlement suggests a lack of good faith in initiating the lawsuit.

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.

Multiple lawsuits have been filed against Dragana Arsić by the same plaintiff.