Starting v. Ivan Ninić
Prosecutor
Starting
Company
2025 | Criminal procedure
The company Starting, which carried out works on the reconstruction of the Railway Station in Novi Sad, filed the second lawsuit against lawyer Ivan Ninić. This time they sued Ninić because of his statement for the Nova.rs portal. In the lawsuit, they state that Ninić provided false information and that he falsely portrayed their business. In his statement, Ninić spoke about the role of Starting in the reconstruction of the railway station in Novi Sad and pointed out that it is necessary to conduct a financial investigation that would provide answers to questions about potential corruption in the whole case. In the lawsuit, Starting claims that Ninić’s statements permanently damage the company’s business reputation and creditworthiness.
Basis of submission (according to which article of the law):
Article 239 of the Criminal CodeDamages/penalty requested:
From Starting, they demand punishment in accordance with the law – and in accordance with the Criminal Code, which they refer to, a fine or a prison sentence of up to one year is possible.
Defendant
Ivan Ninić (Other)
Sector
public information
Outcome - In progress
In progress.
Present characteristics
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 plaintiff is a company that generates multimillion revenues and is engaged in numerous public projects.
2. The arguments presented by the prosecutor are partially or completely unfounded.
The plaintiff states that the statements made by Ninić in January 2025 caused damage to the business reputation of the injured party, including the loss of business partners, projects and financial opportunities. However, in the lawsuit initiated in February 2025, there is no precise explanation of what opportunities this company lost in that month and no explanation of the connection between the disputed statements and the alleged loss of opportunities.
3. The lawsuit or legal remedy, that is, the request or proposal submitted by the plaintiff is disproportionate, excessive or unreasonable.
The plaintiff requests that the defendant be punished in accordance with the Law. The penalty provided for in Article 239 of the Criminal Code can be a fine or even imprisonment.
4. 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 is filed against the lawyer as an individual, which leads to a greater degree of exposure to pressure. Given that it is a criminal proceeding, it obliges the defendant to attend hearings, forcing him to focus his time and attention on the entire trial process, which exhausts the defendant’s financial and non-material resources.
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.
The plaintiff filed a total of seven lawsuits against various actors: journalists, lawyers, engineers and others who publicly criticized the work of this company.
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 initiated extrajudicial mechanisms for resolving the disputed matter. The automatic filing of a lawsuit is intended to surprise the defendant and force them to redirect all their activities and resources to dealing with the court process.
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.
This is the second lawsuit that Starting has filed against Ninić, and the goal of this is to prevent a public debate on a topic of public interest, which is the business of this company, which is engaged in numerous public works, one of the most important of which is the railway station in Novi Sad.
Additional materials
