Vladimir Antić v. Pištaljka
Prosecutor
Vladimir Antić
Other
2023 | Litigation procedure
Vladimir Antić, the general secretary of the Rowing Association of Serbia, sued Pistaljka for writing about the alleged retaliation he carried out against whistleblowers in this association, which is funded by citizens’ money. He states that he was offended by texts based on whistleblower claims and that he was not contacted by Pištaljka for comment, even though Pištaljka journalists sent questions to the Rowing Federation of Serbia from which they did not receive answers. Antić claims that his honor and reputation were injured. During the mandate of Vladimir Antić, the Rowing Federation of Serbia received an international suspension due to debts. Whistle-blowers who pointed out failures in the work of Antić’s administration during 2020 were subsequently fired. Pistaljka informed the public about the case of these whistleblowers, and Antić claims that it hurt his honor and reputation.
Basis of submission (according to which article of the law):
Article 200 of the Law on ObligationsDamages/penalty requested:
Antić requests that the text about the fate of whistleblowers from the Rowing Association be removed from the portal, which points to failures in the work of the association under the leadership of Antić.
Defendant
Association "Eutopia" (publisher), Vladimir Radomirović (Editor)
Organization/Media
Pištaljka
Sector
public information
Outcome - In progress
In progress.
Present characteristics
1. The arguments presented by the prosecutor are partially or completely unfounded.
The prosecutor filed a lawsuit due to the text of the Pištaljka portal, which was based on the claims of the whistleblower, claiming that he was not contacted by Pištaljka for comment, even though Pištaljka journalists sent questions to the Rowing Federation of Serbia, from which they did not receive answers.
2. 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 the publisher of Pištaljka and the editor-in-chief of the portal.
3. The lawsuit or legal remedy, that is, the request or proposal submitted by the plaintiff is disproportionate, excessive or unreasonable.
The prosecutor requests the removal of the text from the Pištaljka portal, which directly aims at censoring the media and preventing reporting on this topic, which is in the public interest, because the association is financed from budget funds.
4. The plaintiff, or persons associated with the plaintiff, have participated or are currently participating in intimidation, harassment or threats to actors participating in public debate.
The prosecutor filed two lawsuits against Pištaljka and one journalist for writing about the situation in the Rowing Association. The second proceeding initiated by Antić is criminal, and the multiple, different lawsuits filed by the prosecutor are aimed at intimidating the editorial office and preventing further work.
5. 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 prosecutor did not try to resolve the dispute through out-of-court mechanisms and refused to answer Pištaljka’s questions before publishing the text.
6. Due to the same event in the framework of the public debate, several lawsuits were filed against the same defendant on different grounds.
The same prosecutor filed a separate lawsuit against a journalist from the same newsroom for writing about the pressure on whistleblowers in the Rowing Association of Serbia.
