SLAPP Lawsuits: How Former Members of State Security Sue Journalists and Media

Claims for compensation for non-material damage due to violation of honor and reputation have been filed (also) against the Slavko Ćuruvija Foundation, due to a statement in which the Foundation expressed disagreement with the ruling of the Appellate Court in Belgrade, which acquitted the plaintiffs of the charges in the case of the murder of journalist Slavko Ćuruvija. All plaintiffs initiated their proceedings separately, although they sued the Foundation for the same statement. The compensation they are seeking is set at 500,000 dinars each.

Regarding the decision of the Appellate Court, lawyer Aleksandar Olenik posted on his personal X account: “The judge who acquitted Ćuruvija's killers from the BIA is Dušanka Đorđević, the wife of the former head of the VI Administration of the DB (BIA), now lawyer Aleksandar Đorđević, who is associated with Mira Marković. The president of the panel, Nada Hadži Perić, participated in the acquittal of the assassin of Vuk Drašković, from the same team from the BIA.”

Due to this post, Romić, Radonjić, and Kurak filed separate lawsuits against him. The lawsuit of Milan Radonjić was rejected in the first instance as unfounded. The plaintiff has the right to appeal this decision. The ruling of the Second Basic Court in Belgrade states:

“In a situation where a court proceeding has attracted significant public attention, such as the murder of Slavko Ćuruvija, there is a strong public interest in information regarding the functioning of the judiciary and the actors involved in such cases. The publication of information about the connection between the judge and the former head of the DB, if true, may be significant for the public in the context of perceiving the independence and impartiality of the court. The content of the disputed post undoubtedly indicates that it primarily addresses the alleged connection of the judge with the former head of the DB, and consequently, the primary aim of that post is to critique or question the integrity of the judiciary, rather than directly defame the plaintiff. Although the plaintiff is mentioned in the context of the acquitting ruling for the murder of Slavko Ćuruvija, this mention serves as an illustration for a broader assertion about the judge. The information regarding the potential connection of the judge with someone from the former structure of the DB in the context of a high-profile trial is of exceptional public interest. Citizens have the right to know whether there are circumstances that could affect the objectivity and independence of the judiciary. In this regard, the plaintiff is mentioned indirectly, as part of the facts that provide context for the claim about the judge. According to the court's findings, the primary goal of the post is not to falsely present the plaintiff as a killer, but to highlight a potential controversial connection of the judge. The fact that the plaintiff was acquitted is an important detail, but this fact alone does not mean that the mention of that context is directed towards harming his reputation, especially when the post is focused on a third party (the judge). In a democratic society, freedom of speech and media includes the right to critically examine the work of public institutions and holders of public functions. Judges are holders of public functions, and their work is subject to public criticism. Information concerning their objectivity and integrity, especially in relation to significant judicial processes, is generally considered to be of public interest. Although the plaintiff is mentioned in an unfavorable context (“Acquitted killer S.Ć.”), this is a secondary effect of the post, whose primary focus was on another individual and issues of public interest. Furthermore, the plaintiff, who bears the burden of proof under Article 231 of the Law on Civil Procedure, has not proven that the disputed post has actually harmed his reputation and honor. A mere subjective feeling of being offended is not sufficient; he must demonstrate that the post resulted in an objective reduction of his reputation in the eyes of the community or the public, as well as that the primary intent of the post was to portray him as a killer and thereby cause him harm, rather than to criticize the judicial system or the judge. Although the plaintiff has been acquitted, he was an actor in a high-profile court case that attracted public attention, and his connection to that event, although he is not a public official, places him in a position where the public has an interest in information about that case.”

The entire document Monitoring the Media Scene in Serbia for the month of June can be read in Serbian and English at this link.