Sanja Petrić v. Dragana Arsić, Nikola Arežina, Petar Živanović, Dušan Tomić

Dragana Arsić, Nikola Arežina, Petar Živanović i Dušan Tomić (Activist)

Movement “Defend the Forests of Fruška Gora”, Movement “Fruškać”

The claim was dismissed. The Higher Court in Novi Sad rejected the plaintiff’s appeal in the second-instance 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.

Sanja Petrić is a co-owner of the large construction company Galens, with significant financial resources and influence in Novi Sad. From this position, she is using litigation to exert pressure on individual civic activists who do not possess comparable economic power or political influence. This clearly demonstrates an imbalance of power in this relationship.

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

The Higher Court itself pointed out that the originally submitted claim was deficient and that there had been grounds for its dismissal from the very beginning. During the proceedings, the plaintiff amended the statements regarding the parcels, which indicates imprecision and insufficient merit of the claim from the outset.

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

The activists were prosecuted for walking across the land during a peaceful environmental protest and for the symbolic removal of a wire fence. Given the circumstances — the fact that the protest was held in the public interest and the nature of the act — the lawsuit is disproportionate and represents an excessive reaction to participation in public debate.

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

Although Sanja Petrić is not a holder of public authority, as an influential private property owner she is using private law to restrict the freedom of expression and assembly of citizens who are highlighting possible abuses in urban planning and the management of natural resources. This lawsuit therefore fits into a broader pattern of abuse of rights aimed at intimidation.

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 four natural persons — civic activists — and not against an association or a formal initiative. This individualizes the pressure.

6. 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.

Sanja Petrić and her husband have previously filed multiple lawsuits against environmental activists.

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.

The plaintiff did not initiate any out-of-court mechanisms to resolve the disputed matter before filing 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.

In connection with the same action, the same plaintiff filed several other lawsuits against the same defendants, in particular Dragana Arsić and Nikola Arežina.