SNS officials from Gornji Milanovac v. Branimir Stojčić

Branimir Stojčić (Activist)

Uzinat

According to the first-instance verdict of the Basic Court in Gornji Milanovac from March 2026, the activist of the Citizens’ Association Uzinat Branimir Stojčić was sentenced to a fine of 975,000 dinars with the obligation to pay court costs. The second-instance verdict of the High Court in Čačak (May 26, 2026) confirmed a fine of 975,000 dinars, and court costs will be determined by a separate decision and will amount to between 750,000 and 1,000,000 dinars. All the defendants have the possibility to submit a property-legal claim for personal compensation for injury to reputation and honor, and the costs can thus reach 3.5 million dinars. Also, regarding the same case, a separate criminal proceeding against Stojčić is being conducted by the President of the Municipality of Gornji Milanovac, Dejan Kovačević.

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 plaintiffs are all officials of the ruling party, and their position and influence are additionally strengthened by the fact that they operate in a smaller place, and therefore the pressure to which the defendant is exposed is greater.

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

The plaintiffs, including the president of the municipality, are officials of the ruling party and local authorities who use their position to deal with political opponents.

3. 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.

All 16 lawsuits were filed against a citizen activist, pressure of this magnitude on one person undoubtedly drains the various resources of the affected person.

4. The plaintiff, or persons associated with the plaintiff, have participated or are currently participating in intimidation, harassment, or threats against actors engaged in public debate.

A total of 16 plaintiffs jointly participate in harassing one activist, with the aim of dissuading him from further action in public space.

5. 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.

All the plaintiffs filed the same charges against the activist at the same time, which indicates a coordinated action aimed at discrediting and harassing the defendant in order to punish him for the words spoken at the public meeting.

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.

All 16 lawsuits arrived at once, without announcement, and it is clear the intention of the plaintiffs to join forces in a joint venture to bury the activist with lawsuits and make it difficult for him to face numerous court processes.

7. 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 President of the Municipality of Gornji Milanovac filed a separate criminal complaint against the activist regarding the same event. Another case against an activist means another potential judgment with a huge damages claim, and it also brings additional pressure and a drain on the activist’s intangible resources.