Tesla Park d.o.o. v. prof. dr. Tamara Milenković Kerković
Prosecutor
Tesla Park
Company
2025 | Criminal procedure
The company Tesla Park sued prof. Dr. Milenković Kerković on March 24, 2025, for the criminal offense of “damaging business reputation and creditworthiness” before the Niš Basic Court, due to the statement reported by the media, which Kerković made in November 2024. She stated that: “Tesla Park, after the construction of the first complex, starts to remove trees and clear land on a clay hill, covered with trees, without a building permit being issued, while on the construction board there is a building permit sign with a marked number, although in public registers it is stated that the company has a Decision on the execution of preparatory works, but no building permit.” “Tesla Park” received the building permit only two months after this statement by Prof. Dr. Kerković – more precisely, December 31, 2024. By the way, Tesla Park d.o.o. was founded by the Cypriot company “Fariox Holdings” allegedly connected to the Karić brothers (Južne vesti wrote about Karić’s connections with this company). An official statement from the company “Tesla Park” commenting on the lawsuit was sent to the media from the email address of the Braće Karić Foundation. Prof. Tamara M. Kerković, Ph.D., states that as a councilor she often spoke about corrupt changes in urban plans in Niš and the connections between the Karić brothers and the former mayor of Niš – Sotirovski, who is currently under house arrest and has been charged with the crime of abuse of office. Kerković states: “The subject of all my public appearances, as well as my participation in all meetings of the Planning Commission, was the intention of the company “Tesla Park” to build a wall on the hill above the so-called “Old Brickworks”, the former area of public use that has been earmarked for parks and sports fields for 40 years. With the general regulation plan and all the lower plans, the administration and urban planners, under the pressure of the then mayor Sotirovski, change the public purpose of the city forest to the so-called “mixed purpose” which enables housing construction. By pointing out both as a member of parliament and as a councilor in the Niš City Assembly, during 6 years of fighting the environmental and security problems of the destruction of greenery, with numerous protests, petitions and citizen assemblies, I managed to force the current city government to cancel the PDR Plan, and to take away several thousand square meters of greenery from investors and return it to public use.” With the lawsuit, “Tesla Park” demands a prison sentence for the councilwoman for 3 months or a fine in the amount of 500,000 dinars. The International CASE Coalition has verified this case as a SLAPP case.
Basis of submission (according to which article of the law):
Article 239, paragraph 2 of the Criminal CodeDamages/penalty requested:
The plaintiff demands a prison sentence of 3 months or a fine in the amount of RSD 500,000.
Defendant
prof. dr. Tamara Milenković Kerković (Other)
Organization/Media
City Councilor in the City Assembly of Niš
Sector
Crime and corruption
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, the company “Tesla Park d.o.o.,” generates millions in annual revenue. The company’s economic power brings with it a significant advantage and the potential to exert broader influence. In the public eye, the firm has been linked to the influential Karić family, who denied these allegations. However, the media published documents showing that a Cypriot firm, then owned by the Karić children, founded the firm “Fariox Holdings,” subsequently withdrew from its ownership, and then “Fariox Holdings” purchased the Niš-based firm “Tesla Park d.o.o.,” whose owner then became the brother of Bogoljub Karić’s sons-in-law.
2. The arguments presented by the prosecutor are partially or completely unfounded.
The statements made by councilor Prof. Dr. Kerković are based on official documentation. The plaintiff, a company with multimillion-dollar revenues, claims that the defendant damaged their creditworthiness and business reputation just because she pointed to official data.
3. The lawsuit or legal remedy, that is, the request or proposal submitted by the plaintiff is disproportionate, excessive or unreasonable.
The plaintiff is seeking a prison sentence or a fine for the councilwoman due to the public criticism, which shows the clear intention of the plaintiff to intimidate the defendant and other actors who would dare to publicly criticize the company.
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 one councilwoman, although there were other actors in the public who criticized the work of this company. Focusing the lawsuit on one person leads to isolation of the participants in the public debate and increased pressure on the targeted individual.
5. The plaintiff, or persons associated with the plaintiff, have participated or are currently participating in intimidating, harassing, or threatening actors involved in the public debate.
The company “Tesla Park” is owned by a Cypriot company and is connected to the companies of the Karić family. Bogoljub Karić filed lawsuits against investigative journalists due to articles about the affairs of his companies.
6. The plaintiff, or persons associated with the plaintiff, have previously been or are currently involved in multiple coordinated lawsuits filed against participants in the public debate.
The company “Tesla Park” and its executives are linked to the Karić family, which previously participated in coordinated lawsuits against investigative journalists and the media.
7. The plaintiff 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 filed the lawsuit immediately.
There was no attempt to resolve the dispute through out-of-court mechanisms prior to the lawsuit.
Additional materials
https://www.juznevesti.com/drustvo/odbornicu-kerkovic-tuze-investitori-ona-kaze-zastrasivanje-oni-narusavanje-poslovnog-ugleda/
Verified SLAPP: Serbian Construction Company Targets City Councillor over Permit Concerns
