Vladimir Đukanović v. Vuk Cvijić

Vuk Cvijić (Journalist)

Radar (at the time of the lawsuit - NIN)

At the hearing held in February 2026, the plaintiff’s attorney requested that the full recordings of journalist Vuk Cvijić’s appearances in two television programs be reviewed and transcribed (although the usual practice is for transcripts to be submitted together with the lawsuit).
Vladimir Đukanović’s legal representative, Srđan Jovanović, requested that, for contextual purposes, the court review the entirety of Cvijić’s guest appearances on the programs “Probudi se” and “Među nama,” in which he reiterated the allegations from the article describing Đukanović as a person who had offered a bribe. Judge Dina Drljača Savićević asked Jovanović why they were requesting a review of the full programs when the plaintiff had already identified the specific statements he considered defamatory and in violation of his honor, reputation, and the presumption of innocence, and had reiterated those claims in his testimony at one of the previous hearings. Nevertheless, Đukanović’s attorney insisted that the recordings be played in full. Although Cvijić discussed various topics during the programs—not only matters relating to Đukanović—22 minutes of the broadcast were played during the hearing. After the court stenographer transcribed 19 minutes and 52 seconds of the recording, during which Cvijić largely spoke about matters unrelated to the plaintiff Đukanović, attorney Jovanović agreed that the review of the remaining material could be discontinued, as Đukanović was not mentioned further. The court subsequently decided to adjourn the hearing, as more than the scheduled two hours had elapsed. The defense considers such requests to review entire video recordings to be a tactic aimed at prolonging the proceedings.

Previous course of the proceedings: At the preliminary hearing, Cvijić’s defense proposed that Inspector Milenković and former NIN editor-in-chief Milan Ćulibrk be heard as witnesses, and that an official memorandum be formally obtained from the Ministry of Interior of Serbia. Đukanović’s legal representative requested that these evidentiary motions be dismissed. The court decided to grant the request to hear Ćulibrk, now editor at Radar, and to formally request the official memorandum from the Ministry of Interior, while reserving its decision on the examination of Inspector Milenković for a later stage.

Đukanović did not appear at the hearing on September 13, 2024, and it was postponed to December 24, 2024. year.

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.

Đukanović is one of the most prominent members of the Serbian Progressive Party and is currently a member of the Serbian Parliament. In his public appearances and posts on social networks, he regularly attacks journalists, activists and all those who dare to criticize the SNS government. He is also the legal representative of Predrag Koluvija, businessman and owner of the company “Jovanjica”, the first defendant in the “Jovanjica” case. At the moment when he started to defend Koluvia, Đukanović was the parliamentary head of the Committee for the Judiciary and thus a member of the High Council of the Judiciary and the State Council of Prosecutors, which allowed him to influence the position and dismissal of prosecutors and judges. The influential positions he holds in party and state indicate the imbalance of power and political influence of the power holder who files the lawsuit.

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

Đukanović states in the lawsuit that the information from the official note published in Cvijić’s text is incorrect, but at the same time, the plaintiffs’ lawyer opposed the court officially obtaining the note from the MUP.

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

Compensation in the amount of 1,100,000 dinars was requested, and such an exceptionally high sum aims to intimidate the journalist and exhaust him financially.

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

Vladimir Đukanović, as a holder of various public positions and as one of the key people in SNS, abuses his influence and position in order to deal with investigative journalism and to stifle public debate about his potential involvement in illegal activities.

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.

The lawsuit was filed only against the journalist Vuk Cvijić, which leads to greater exposure of the individual to the pressure and challenges of the procedure. It also aims to isolate the individual and prevent him from working.

6. 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.

Vladimir Đukanović is the defense attorney of Predrag Koluvija, who filed several lawsuits against investigative journalists and media reporting on the“Jovanjica” proceedings. Also, the prosecutor actively participates in campaigns targeting the media, activists and citizens, and often openly calls for violence against participants in the public debate.

7. 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.

Persons closely related to Vladimir Đukanović actively participate in the coordinated filing of lawsuits against actors and participants in the public debate.