Vladimir Antic v. Snežana Đurić

Snežana Đurić (Journalist)

Pištaljka

Pištaljka journalist Snežana Đurić has been acquitted of all charges in a criminal lawsuit filed by the former Secretary General of the Rowing Federation of Serbia, Vladimir Antić, who had sought a two-year prison sentence for her. The verdict was delivered on December 16, 2025, at the Second Basic Court in Belgrade. 12. 2025. During the announcement of the verdict, Judge Zoran Sarić of the Second Basic Court in Belgrade stated that the text contained no statements made with the intent to demean. Judge Sarić also said that the journalist was not responsible for publishing the photograph, as it was published by Pištaljka’s editor-in-chief and managing editor, Vladimir Radomirović, as he testified in court. The court also ordered Vladimir Antić to pay the court costs of the proceedings to the Pištaljka journalist, with the amount to be determined subsequently by a separate ruling. Antić has the right to appeal the verdict.

The previous course of the trial: At the hearing held in May 2025, judge Sarić did not allow the journalist’s lawyer to ask the prosecutor questions about whistleblowers. The judge also kicked out of the courtroom two Pištaljka journalists who were following the hearing. The judge of the Second Basic Court stated at one point that “Pištaljka with such texts led to the trial”. This provoked a reaction from the journalists present, after which two journalists from Pištaljka were thrown out of the courtroom. At the previous hearings, the prosecutors tried to find out whether whistleblowers were a source for journalists to write articles about the situation in the Rowing Association. The next hearing is scheduled for September 16, 2025. year.

“Pistaljka” writes that the judge of the Second Basic Court, Zoran Sarić, excluded the public and the lawyers of both sides from the conciliation procedure – as the offer to the plaintiff to drop the lawsuit is called. However, the lawyers of Pištaljka, who represent the journalist Đurić, were not previously informed about this. But, according to that portal, Aleksandar Ninković, Vladimir Antic’s lawyer, was informed about this at the hearing held in September, which Pistahlka’s lawyers did not attend because they had previously postponed it. Antic did not give up the lawsuit because, as he says, it should be “a lesson to all journalists in their future work.” Antić nije odustao od tužbe jer, kako kaže, to treba da bude “nauk svim novinarima u daljem radu.”

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

The lawsuit was filed due to the publication of the plaintiff’s photo, which is publicly available on the website of the Rowing Federation of Serbia, and Pištaljka’s text clearly states the source of the photo.

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

The prosecutor requested a prison sentence of two years and a total of RSD 650,000 in compensation for the defendant journalist. The request for a prison sentence is clearly unreasonable and the prosecutor’s intention is clear to intimidate all those who dare to write about him.

3. 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 journalist Pištaljka, which leads to the individualization of the pressure and the intention to exhaust the defendant’s material and psychological resources through criminal proceedings, as well as to prevent her from further work due to the obligation to be present at the trials and to spend time and resources on them.

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 several lawsuits against Pištaljka for reporting on the pressure on whistleblowers in the Rowing Federation of Serbia. The second proceeding initiated by Antić is a civil lawsuit, and multiple, different lawsuits filed by the prosecutor are aimed at intimidating the editorial office and preventing its 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.

There was no attempt to settle the dispute out of court. Pištaljka writes that the judge of the Second Basic Court excluded the public and the lawyers of both sides from the conciliation procedure – as the offer to the plaintiff to drop the lawsuit is called, and that the lawyers of Pištaljka, who represent the journalist Đurić, were not informed about it beforehand, but the plaintiff’s lawyer was informed.

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 the defendant’s employer (publisher and editor of Pištaljka) because of the article about whistleblowers from the Rowing Association. In this way, the prosecutor, in addition to the media, tries to put pressure on whistleblowers.