The criminal complaint filed by journalist Vojin Radovanović against the city councillor Slobodan Šolević for endangering safety has been dismissed

As stated in the prosecutor's decision, the criminal complaint for Endangering Safety under Article 138, paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code was dismissed "because there are no grounds for suspicion that the accused committed the indicated criminal offense for which prosecution is pursued ex officio."

The Association of Journalists of Serbia (UNS), using the mechanism of the Permanent Working Group for the Safety of Journalists, reported last November to this prosecutor's office the threats directed at journalist Vojin Radovanović by Slobodan Šolević, a member of the City Council of Belgrade and a representative of the Socialist Party of Serbia.

As Vojin Radovanović stated in his testimony to the prosecutor's office, on November 27, 2024, as a journalist, he went to the City Assembly of Belgrade, with accreditation, to report on a session that was scheduled to take place that day.

At that time, he noticed in front of the Assembly the president of the Association of Families of Kidnapped, Missing, and Killed in Kosovo and Metohija, Simo Spasić, who was shouting through a megaphone, resisting the demands of security, and refusing to leave the Assembly building.

He began to record the event when Šolević appeared in the frame, asking the journalist if Spasić needed a recording, which is why he was filming. Radovanović explained that he was a journalist on assignment and was doing his job.

Šolević demanded that he delete the recording, and when he did not comply, as Radovanović noted, the city council member began to threaten him, getting in his face, cursing his mother, and threatening to "break his p...".

Radovanović added that he then turned to the security personnel and informed them that Šolević had threatened him, but the security members told him they "did not see" anything. They reiterated this in their subsequent statement to the police.

"I felt threatened for my life and safety and felt fear," Radovanović said.

According to the prosecutor's decision, Radovanović provided the police with his phone recording, but "the described actions are not evident on it, nor are there any curses or threats heard."

The City Assembly of Belgrade, in response to the police request on March 31 of this year to provide footage from security cameras, stated that it was unable to do so due to the passage of time, as servers store recordings for 25 days, after which they are automatically deleted.

In his statement, Slobodan Šolević mentioned that on that day at the entrance to the Assembly, he saw Simo Spasić making noise, and he was waiting for the right moment to ask him to stop making noise.

He then said he "noticed that a third party was filming Simo, so he approached him, asked why he was filming, and requested that he stop recording to prevent an incident."

Šolević stated that the "individual" did not have any journalistic identification on them, that he did not threaten or curse him, and that he was unaware that Radovanović was on a work assignment.

He also mentioned that he had never seen him before, did not know him from prior encounters, and was not aware that he was a journalist, stating that he only learned of Radovanović's profession through a statement he saw on social media.

Justifying her decision, Judge Tatjana Mihailović stated that she "considers that there is no evidence supporting grounds for suspicion that Šolević committed the criminal offense of Endangering Safety," taking into account that Šolević claimed he did not know Radovanović, had never seen him before, and that the journalist did not have any identification, and that he did not threaten or curse him.

Furthermore, the resolution notes that Radovanović himself confirmed that he did not have any journalistic identification on him.

The complaint is dismissed, considering, as stated, that Šolević "never met Radovanović again afterward and that the 'threats' made were not repeated or realized in any way," that security did not witness the incident, that the recording does not capture any curses or threats, and that no video footage of the event from surveillance cameras was preserved.