Starting v. multiple people

multiple people (Other)

In progress.

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.

It is not clear how the defendants could damage the business reputation of a company that generates multi-million revenues with their statements.

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

The plaintiff demanded that the journalist be fined 300,000 dinars, and it can be assumed that a similar excessive and disproportionate amount was demanded from the other defendants. In accordance with the article of the Criminal Code on the basis of which 7 persons were sued, a prison sentence of up to one year is also possible.

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 was filed against several individuals who spoke publicly about the business of Starting. Given that it is a criminal proceeding, it obliges the defendants to attend the hearings, which is financially but also immaterially exhausting for the defendants.

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 plaintiff 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.