CASE

Tanja Grujić v. Damjan Stevkić

In progress

Prosecutor

Tanja Grujić

Politician

2026 | Criminal procedure

Tanja Grujić, a former councilor in the Assembly of the city of Majdanpek, filed a private criminal complaint against Damjan Stevkić, councilor and holder of the list in the local elections “We decide – Dr. Damjan Stevkić!”. The lawsuit was filed because of a video posted by Damjan Stevkić on his Facebook profile, in which he states that the plaintiff allegedly organized the beating of her ex-husband. In the same video, the defendant stated that: “you cannot be a mobster and a political representative.” In the lawsuit, it is stated that the plaintiff’s honor and reputation were injured and, as stated in the lawsuit, the criminal offense of insult was committed. It is stated that due to the publication, the plaintiff experienced health consequences. The lawsuit requires the defendant to pay RSD 400,000 to the private plaintiff and to compensate all the costs of the criminal proceedings. The private plaintiff additionally asserts a property-legal claim for the compensation of non-material damages due to mental pain suffered due to injury to honor and reputation in the amount of 300,000 dinars (with statutory default interest). Damjan Stevkić is an opposition activist who deals with various topics at the local level, which he talks about publicly on his profiles on social networks.

Basis of submission (according to which article of the law):

Article 170 of the Criminal Code

Damages/penalty requested:

The lawsuit requires the defendant to pay 400,000 dinars and to compensate all the costs of the criminal proceedings. In addition, an amount of 300,000 dinars (with statutory default interest) is requested for the compensation of non-material damages due to mental pain suffered due to injury to honor and reputation.

Defendant

Damjan Stevkić (Activist)

Organization/Media

Group of citizens "We decide - Dr. Damjan Stevkić!"

Sector

Outcome - 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.

A former councilwoman, is a member of the ruling Serbian Progressive Party, which is why she has political connections and contacts with power holders, which puts her in a position of power in relation to the defendant.

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

The private lawsuit that was filed is unfounded because the part related to the alleged kidnapping of the ex-husband is not an insult but a defamation, and defamation is not a criminal offense and it has been decriminalized in Serbia since 2012. By initiating criminal proceedings, the defendant is being exposed to prosecution.

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

The criminal proceedings and the monetary compensation requested are excessive, especially considering the groundlessness of the arguments of the lawsuit.

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

At the time the lawsuit was filed, the plaintiff was a councilor in the local assembly.

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.

Numerous members of SNS initiated and are initiating lawsuits against journalists, activists and citizens for participating in public debate.

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.

The lawsuit was filed without first trying to settle the dispute out of court.