Sanja Petrić v. Dragana Arsić

Dragana Arsić (Activist)

Movement “Defend the Forests of Fruška Gora”

The claim was dismissed. The Court of Appeal in Novi Sad upheld the judgment 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 one of the most influential construction companies in Novi Sad, with significant financial power and local political influence, whereas Dragana Arsić is an individual activist and a member of an informal civic initiative.

2. The arguments presented by the plaintiff are partially or entirely unfounded.”

The claim was dismissed as unfounded at all levels of the court proceedings.

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

The amount of compensation sought — 800,000 dinars — for the alleged emotional distress and fear, together with the additional litigation costs, is clearly disproportionate to the scope of the action and the context of a public protest in the interest of environmental protection. The court rejected all such claims.

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

Although the plaintiff is not a holder of public authority, the misuse of private legal instruments to restrict freedom of expression and the right to public assembly within a national park constitutes a form of abuse of rights. The court clearly established that the action was legitimate and aimed at drawing attention to the obligations of property owners within an area subject to a statutory protection regime.

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 directly against Dragana Arsić as a natural person, even though it concerned a public action organized by the civic movements ‘Defend the Forests of Fruška Gora’ and ‘Fruškać’. In this way, the pressure is individualized and directed at her personally as an activist.

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 has filed multiple lawsuits against environmental activists.

7. The plaintiff did not initiate any out-of-court mechanisms to resolve the disputed matter before filing the lawsuit, or the plaintiff, as a holder of public authority, did not issue a warning or notice to the defendant but immediately filed the lawsuit.

Sanja Petrić did not initiate any out-of-court mechanisms to resolve the disputed matter before filing the lawsuit.

8. In connection with the same event within the framework of public debate, multiple lawsuits have been filed against the same defendant on different grounds.

This case is part of a series of at least five lawsuits related to the same or similar public protest action on Fruška Gora, brought against the same activists, including Dragana Arsić. This indicator is fully met.