The public should know about Vučić from Sky: The lawsuit of the Serbian President's brother against "Vijesti" was rejected as unfounded

Publication of Sky correspondence mentioning the brother of the Serbian President Andrej Vucic It was of public interest, and he, as a public figure and active participant in the political life of that country, must endure a wider degree of public criticism and public interest, is the position of the Podgorica Basic Court.

This is stated in the first-instance verdict that rejected the request of the Belgrade resident to have "Vijesti"'s editor-in-chief Mihailo Jovovic, editor of the black chronicle Danilo Mihajlovic and journalist Jelena Jovanovic jointly and severally pay 5.000 euros for violation of honor, reputation and dignity.

By the same decision, Vučić is obliged to pay the defendants 3.403,12 euros in civil proceedings costs.

Judge Jelena Andjelic At the same time, it rejected the request to remove from the "Vijesti" portal the text published on January 23, 2024 under the title "Zvonko and Andrej celebrated a billion...", as well as to have the editor-in-chief publish the verdict at his own expense.

The subject of the proceedings was a text in which "Vijesti" quoted parts of a Sky communication that, according to the case files, was conducted by a fugitive police officer. Ljubo Milović and from Nikšić Miloš Božović.

This correspondence mentions the security services of Montenegro and Serbia, criminal clans, and the President of Serbia. Aleksandar Vučić, his brother Andrej and a businessman from Kosovo Zvonko Veselinović.

The court stated that when making its decision, it particularly assessed whether Andrej Vučić was a public figure, whether he exercised his right to demand a response or correction, whether the disputed text was of public interest, whether the defendants acted in good faith and had a factual basis for publication, as well as whether the adoption of the claim could have a "chilling effect" on public debate.

The verdict states that the court reviewed data from the Serbian Progressive Party (SNS) website and determined that Vučić is a member of the party's executive board, that he participated in a working meeting of the Voždovac Municipal Board and attended a meeting of the SNS City Board in Zrenjanin.

This, the verdict states, led to the conclusion that Vučić "actively and publicly participates in political life in the Republic of Serbia and speaks publicly on important issues."

"Therefore, the prosecutor, as a public figure who, due to his function, influence, public activity or voluntary entry into public space, must suffer a wider degree of public criticism and public interest and therefore expose himself to public scrutiny, and that there is obviously a greater legitimate public interest," it states.

The Court specifically explained why it found that the disputed text was of public interest: "The Court considers that the text in question represents reporting on a topic of public interest, bearing in mind that it refers to the content of Sky communications by persons who are subject to criminal proceedings for organized crime, and that the communication mentions the brother of the President of the Republic of Serbia."

The reasoning adds that the court specifically took into account that the topic of organized crime and possible connections with political structures is a matter of exceptional public interest, and that the public has the right to be informed about the content of communications that are the subject of court and prosecutorial proceedings - "especially when they mention persons who have political influence or are connected to holders of public office".

The Court, however, stated that the existence of public interest does not exempt the media from the obligation to act carefully and responsibly.

"The mere fact of the existence of public interest does not exempt the media from the obligation to act carefully and responsibly when publishing information that may seriously affect the reputation and dignity of an individual," the ruling states.

The Court therefore also considered the issue of due journalistic care, explaining that one of these standards is the rule of "audiatur et altera pars", i.e. the obligation to provide the person being reported with the opportunity to express his/her opinion, as well as to verify the information from another source when possible.

The court found that the plaintiff was not given the opportunity to comment before the publication of the text, although the defendants claimed that they had tried to contact him.

During the final assessment, however, the court appreciated their statements about attempts to reach Vučić, but also the fact that after the publication of the text, he did not contact "Vijesti" with a request for a response or correction.

"Furthermore, the court finds that the plaintiff had the opportunity to use the legal mechanism of response and correction of information prescribed by the Media Law, but that he did not exercise this right before filing the lawsuit. Although the exercise of this right is not a procedural prerequisite for filing a lawsuit, the same circumstance is of importance when assessing the proportionality of the request and the conduct of the parties," the verdict states.

The court also assessed the content of the Sky communication in detail, and in order to determine its credibility, it inspected the Sky ECC communication of Milović and Božović. Based on data from the criminal proceedings against the fugitive police officer before the Higher Court in Podgorica, it was determined that he wrote under the PIN 5S7GLO...

After reviewing that communication, the court determined that the correspondence in the disputed text was "credibly conveyed."

The court assessed that "Vijesti" reported on the content of the Sky communication, which is the subject of criminal proceedings, and not on claims that the journalists themselves made.

"The court further finds that the text in question did not contain categorical claims by the journalist that the prosecutor was a perpetrator of criminal acts or a member of a criminal organization, but rather that it was a transmission of communication between third parties commenting on certain events and relationships," the verdict states.

It is also stated that the content of the text suggests that it is a transmission of statements from communication, "and not claims that journalists present as indisputably established facts."

Referring to the case of “Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway”, the court pointed out that the media have the right to report on serious allegations of public interest when there is a sufficient factual basis and when they act in good faith.

“A journalist does not have to prove the 'absolute truth' of every accusation if he is reporting on a document or existing claims,” the ruling states.

The court also did not accept the plaintiff's claim that the defendants expressed their own value judgments about him in the text.

The verdict clarifies that the disputed text transfers the content of Sky's correspondence with third parties, and that the parts in which the content is transferred descriptively cannot be treated as value judgments of the defendants, because they correspond to the content of the correspondence in question.

"Any value judgments can be attributed to third parties, not to the defendants," the court states.

In this regard, the court also pointed to the headline of the disputed text: "Milović and Božović commented for months on the security services of Montenegro and Serbia and criminal clans in the territories of the two states", assessing that this also implies that it is a communication between third parties.

The Court also referred to the case of “Thoma v. Luxembourg”, stating that “punishing journalists for disseminating or reporting statements by other persons would seriously undermine the contribution that the press makes to the discussion of matters of public interest”.

The reasoning states that the court considered the statements of the editor-in-chief, editor and journalist and concluded that the defendants acted "in good faith" and in accordance with journalistic ethics.

"The court considered that the defendants acted in good faith, that is, in good intentions, and with due journalistic care," the verdict states.

The court based this conclusion on the fact that the defendants had in their possession communications from criminal files, that they marked them as communications from third parties, that they were trying to get a response from the prosecutor, and that they also quoted in the text an earlier statement by Andrej Vučić about his relationship with Zvonko Veselinović.

"I saw Veselinović twice in Kosovo, and I don't think we've ever heard from each other in our lives. I don't even have his number saved in my phone...", the verdict quotes part of that earlier statement.

Vučić: The goal was to portray us as connected to crime

Andrej Vučić claimed that the disputed text was written and published with the intention of portraying him and his brother, Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić, as individuals connected to criminal structures.

He stated that the text contained false and unverified information, that he was not engaged in private business, that he did not have a company in his name, that he had no connections with criminal clans, nor any relationships with persons associated with crime.

He told the court that he has been employed at the National Bank of Serbia for 28 years, that he is a family man and father of two children, that he has never been convicted, and that there are no criminal proceedings against him.

He stated that he knew Zvonko Veselinović, but that he had seen him "maybe two or three times", that Veselinović was not his friend and that he had no business with him. Vučić said that after publishing the text he felt "terrible", as did his family, and that a doctor friend recommended a tranquilizer and heart medication, but that he did not have medical documentation for this.

The court appreciated his allegations of discomfort, anxiety and injury, but found that he had not proven the intensity and duration of the mental pain to an extent that would justify the award of compensation.

"The mere allegation that, on the recommendation of a friend, he used tranquilizers and heart therapy, without proper medical documentation, is not sufficient evidence to determine the extent of non-pecuniary damage," the verdict states.

Editors and journalist: Correspondence is part of criminal files

Jovović said before the court that journalists approached him when they learned that the brother of the Serbian President was mentioned in the Sky correspondence, and that he assessed that this was information of public interest for Montenegro and the region.

He said that before publishing it, he tried to contact Andrej Vučić to get his statement, but was unsuccessful. He also stated that he could not claim that what the participants in the Sky communication were saying was true, but that he knew that the communication was the subject of criminal proceedings before the High Court.

Mihajlović said that journalists did not read the Sky Correspondence looking for Andrej Vučić, but that they came across his mention by following the communication of the main bearers of the Sky Correspondence - Radoja Zvicer, Milović, Petar Lazović... He said that the text does not contain any author's words, but rather a transfer of quotes from the Sky correspondence, and that it would be in the editorial office's interest to include Vučić's position.

Jovanović explained that the disputed text was published after the indictment against Milović was filed, and that she and her colleagues believed that the public should be informed of the contents of the correspondence. The court, after presenting evidence, concluded that the defendants had sufficient factual basis for publishing the text.

"In the opinion of this court, the defendants in this case acted within the framework of freedom of expression and reporting on matters of public interest, relying on existing material that is the subject of criminal proceedings and that has already been the subject of media reporting in the region," the verdict reads.

The court stated that the defendants did not act “with the intention of unfoundedly discrediting the plaintiff”, but rather with the aim of informing the public about a topic of public interest. Therefore, the claim for compensation for non-pecuniary damage was rejected.

Vijesti is represented in this case by attorney Siniša Gazivoda.

Removing the text would be a serious problem for democracy and freedom of expression

The court also specifically explained why it rejected the request to remove the text from the "Vijesti" portal.

The ruling states that the Media Law allows for restrictions on the further dissemination of media content only in specially prescribed cases, such as direct and intentional incitement to commit criminal acts, violence, hatred or terrorism.

Which is not the case in this case and would lead to a clear violation of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the court stated.

The Court also referred to the case of “Times Newspapers Ltd v. the United Kingdom”, stating that internet archives have “great social value” and are protected by Article 10 of the European Convention.

According to the court, removing the text could lead to a "chilling effect" - "the effect of deterrence and intimidation" - and the possibility that "in every subsequent and future case, members of the media will remain silent for fear of similar consequences."

This, as the verdict states, would be a "serious problem for democracy and freedom of expression in a society and state" and would discourage others from speaking out on issues of public interest.

The Court also stated that Article 10 of the European Convention protects not only “popular” speech, but also that which “shocks or disturbs”.

For these reasons, the request to remove the text was rejected, as was the request to publish the verdict at the expense of the editor-in-chief of "Vijesti".