Tomislav Momirović v. multiple media
Prosecutor
Tomislav Momirović
Politician
2026 | Litigation procedure
Former minister Tomislav Momirović filed two lawsuits against the media for reporting on his arrest. He filed a lawsuit against Vranjenews.rs (and their editor-in-chief) and the Pravo u centar portal. The news stated that the former minister was arrested on August 1, 2025 at the airport, and he states in the lawsuit that he was arrested in his family home (the news was transmitted from another media and it was clearly indicated that it was a transmitted news, yet the media that originally published the news according to the available information was not sued, which indicates specific targeting of local media that are financially weaker). The lawsuit against Vranjenews states that the official MUP documentation confirming this will be submitted later (without an explanation as to why it was not submitted immediately). The prosecutor believes that his honor and reputation were injured because the news that he was arrested at the airport, as stated in the lawsuit, “implies an attempt to escape, evasion of the prosecuting authorities, and awareness of guilt.” The plaintiff is asking to be compensated for damages in the amount of 300,000 dinars. The lawsuit also states that the alleged damage caused to Tomislav Momirović cannot be removed “by a simple correction because the initial sensationalist news always has a stronger effect than the subsequent denial.” The news on the Vranjenews portal contains the following sentence: “As N1 writes, Momirović was detained on Friday morning at Nikola Tesla Airport.” The former minister sued another local media Pravo u centar on the same grounds a few days after the lawsuit against VranjeNews.
Basis of submission (according to which article of the law):
Article 200 of the Law on Obligations, Article 123 of the Law on Public Information and Media, Article 90 of the Law on Public Information and MediaDamages/penalty requested:
The prosecutor is asking for damages of 300,000 dinars.
Defendant
CEDEM (publisher of VranjeNews) and Dejan Dimić (chief editor), Pravo u centar portal (Media)
Organization/Media
VranjeNews, Pravo u centar
Sector
Public information
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.
The plaintiff is a former Minister in two mandates. Although he is no longer in a high official position, the political influence and connections he possesses are undeniable, which creates an imbalance of power in relation to the defendant local media.
2. The arguments presented by the prosecutor are partially or completely unfounded.
The text has been transferred from another source with a clear indication of where the information comes from. It is a dispute that would not even have been initiated if there were no power imbalance.
3. The lawsuit or legal remedy, that is, the request or proposal submitted by the plaintiff is disproportionate, excessive or unreasonable.
Considering the fact that the information in question was republished from another source, that the article explicitly stated that the original media outlet relied on unofficial information, that there was an opportunity to request a correction or rebuttal before the lawsuit was filed, that the defendants are small local media outlets with no history of unethical reporting, and that the claim sought damages in the amount of 300,000 dinars as well as publication of the judgment (an amount that, according to current court practice, is set excessively high, particularly where publication of the judgment is sought in addition to monetary compensation), the legal remedy sought by the plaintiff is disproportionate, excessive, and unreasonable.
4. Claims represent abuse of rights, i.e. distributive use of authority by public authorities against actors participating in public debate.
The plaintiff, a former high-ranking government official, has brought a lawsuit against small local media outlets over a news report they republished. This suggests an abuse of power aimed at targeting and intimidating those who report at the local level on matters of public interest.
5. 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.
In addition to the media, a lawsuit was also filed against the editor-in-chief.
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.
As a member of the ruling party and a former high-ranking public official, the plaintiff belongs to a group of political figures, public officials, and powerful individuals who use lawsuits as a means of intimidation, with the aim of suppressing critical speech and narrowing the space for public debate.
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.
The lawsuit itself states that the alleged harm suffered by the former minister could not be remedied through a simple correction, because “the initial sensationalist news report always has a stronger impact than a subsequent denial.” Consequently, no out-of-court dispute resolution mechanisms were pursued prior to initiating the proceedings.
