The trial of Gucijan-Čarnić against the newspaper "Politika" has begun.

Their representative, Jasna Trifunović, stated in court that she had only received the documentation mentioned in the response to the lawsuit, which was to be presented at the preparatory hearing, yesterday, and which was supposed to be provided by the "Politika" law firm Isailović.

The previous preparatory hearing, scheduled for December 23 of last year, was postponed for a month to allow the defendants to submit that very documentation, although the same parties were present in court.

“I prepared last night,” said attorney Trifunović, indicating to the judge that this was the reason the presentation would take longer than usual.

Contested Date

She pointed out that the Decision on the Amendment of the Job Classification Regulations, based on which the termination procedure was carried out by the employer, was not properly published. It was located in a locked showcase, from which only the title of the document could be seen, she stated.

“Even if this act had been properly published on May 12, 2025, it could not take effect on May 20, according to the rules for calculating deadlines. The deadline for taking effect begins to run on May 13, and then eight days are counted. No decision, nor a resolution on the termination of the employment contract, could have been made on May 20,” Trifunović said.

The terminations were issued to the plaintiffs, the attorney continued, due to economic and organizational changes, but the resolutions did not explain either the economic or organizational changes that allegedly occurred at the defendant's side.

“The jobs performed by the plaintiffs did not cease,” the attorney stated, providing evidence that the Regulations on Internal Organization from May 12 of last year established that sections and editorial offices are managed by section and editorial editors.

“I believe this is a fictitious technological surplus. The plaintiffs were terminated for completely different reasons that are neither economic nor organizational in nature at the defendant's side,” she noted.

Publication of Photograph and Reaction to the Appeal for RTS

This attorney further presented that the editors of "Politika" were asked to conclude an agreement on the termination of their employment relationship because Sandra Gucijan, on her social media profile, posted a photograph with a public figure that was not to the liking of "Politika," and because both reacted to an article titled "Appeal to End Violence Against Employees at RTS," published in the holiday triple issue, as it contained false information.

Trifunović disputed the explanation in the response to the lawsuit that "Politika" implemented organizational changes to increase the responsibility of the chief and responsible editor.

“That is an illogical assertion and a legal goal that cannot be achieved. The responsibility of the chief editor under the Law on Public Information and Media is absolute. He is responsible for the content of every article and the entire issue, which means that his responsibility cannot be increased or decreased by internal acts of the employer,” Trifunović said in court.

The terminations of the editors of "Politika," she further stated, represent an act of discrimination, for which she knows there is no jurisdiction in this court, but that the context should be taken into account, as well as the fact that under the Law on Public Information and Media, a journalist cannot have their employment terminated for expressing a political opinion.

She proposed hearing Darko Pejović and Aleksandar Bojović, who were deputies of the dismissed editors of "Politika," as well as journalist Aleksandra Petrović.

Legal intern Filip Kostić from the Isailović law firm confirmed that they stand by the statements made in the response to the lawsuit. He proposed hearing Marko Albunović, the chief editor of "Politika."

The judge set a formal timeframe for the trial at 24 months and six hearings.

The next hearing is scheduled for April 1 at 10:30 AM at the First Basic Court, when the dismissed editors of "Politika" will be heard.

What Does the Lawsuit State?

Both editors of "Politika" were terminated on the same day, for the same reason, within the same procedure for resolving the alleged surplus of employees, states the lawsuit against the company "Politika Novine i Magazini, Society for Publishing Newspapers and Magazines LLC Belgrade."

The lawsuit states that this is an illegal termination. That the defendant did not comply with the law as it did not make available to all employees the "Decision on the Amendment of the Regulations on Job Classification for 'Politika Novine i Magazini LLC'" and the "Regulations on Amendments and Additions to the Regulations on Internal Organization of 'Politika Novine i Magazini LLC'" dated May 12, 2025.

In this way, it is stated in the lawsuit, the plaintiffs' right to know what changes are being introduced and what consequences they may have has been violated.

The same applies to the "Decision on the Need to Address the Surplus of Employees" and the "Decision on Determining the Surplus of Employees," which were made on the same day, May 20 of last year, simultaneously with the resolutions on the termination for both editors of "Politika."

“Such conduct shows that a lawful and gradual process of determining the surplus of employees was not carried out, but that it had been previously decided that the plaintiffs' employment should be terminated,” the lawsuit states.

It is noted that the employer abused the right to organize work in order to simulate a technological surplus, while effectively eliminating the plaintiffs from their positions.

It is also highlighted that the changes in the job classification and the elimination of positions were directed at two organizational units, "Weekend Desk" and "Chronicle Section," which shows that the goal was the elimination of specific employees.

The elimination of the editor positions for the Chronicle and Weekend edition, as stated in the lawsuit, was accompanied by the creation of the position of "Assistant to the Chief and Responsible Editor," where former assistants to the dismissed editors now work.

The lawsuit claims that the very existence of the "Assistant to the Chief and Responsible Editor" in the organizational units "Chronicle Section" and "Weekend Desk" confirms the need for the work that Gucijan and Čarnić performed, and that the same work is being done in practice, just under a different title.

Sandra Gucijan and Dorotea Čarnić requested the court to annul the illegal terminations and reinstate them at "Politika."

Response to the Lawsuit

The Isailović law firm, representing "Politika," responded that it disputes the claims in the lawsuit in their entirety.

They stated that the plaintiffs' assertion that the act on job classification was altered without objective grounds is inaccurate.

“Contrary to the plaintiffs' claims, the disputed amendments to the defendant's act on job classification were based on economic and organizational needs reflected in the need for optimization and improvement of processes and work organization aimed at achieving rationalization and savings in the defendant's operations,” it states in the response to the lawsuit.

It was indicated that a business decision was made to "meet these needs by reducing the number of employees, while simultaneously giving greater responsibilities to the chief and responsible editor."

The claim that there is still a need at the defendant's for the work that the plaintiffs performed was also disputed.

“The Assistant to the Chief and Responsible Editor does not perform the same tasks that the section editors performed. The section editors are not assistants to the chief and responsible editor. On the contrary,” states the response to the lawsuit signed by the Isailović law firm.

Source: UNS