According to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, the term “public figure” does not refer exclusively to elected or appointed officials, but also to persons who are connected with matters of public interest, or are in the sphere of public life by virtue of their connections, activities or position.
And if Andrej Vucic in that sense, he is not an independent celebrity, his “celebrity” stems from his family connection with the President of Serbia and the potential influence or benefit that may arise from that connection, so these persons can be considered public figures to the extent that they are connected to matters of public interest.
This was told to "Vijesti" yesterday by a professor of media law and dean of the Podgorica Faculty of Law. Aneta Spaić, asked to comment on Andrej Vučić's statement - that he is not a public figure, given in the courtroom of the Basic Court in Podgorica, in the proceedings he initiated against "Vijesti".
The brother of the Serbian president sued "Vijesti" for an article that, among other things, quoted correspondence from the Sky app, in which a fugitive police officer Ljubo Milović and from Nikšić Miloš Božović comment that the controversial businessman Zvonko Veselinović and he "holds all the strings in his hands" and that they recently celebrated "the first billion euros earned."
"I don't see myself as a public figure, but as a target to harm my brother... One of the reasons why I didn't call these journalists is because I have never given a statement to any media outlet in my life, nor have I ever been present in the media. I have never given a statement to the media, and it concerns the work of the party, or anything else, private life or anything," Vučić said.
He is before the judge. Jelena Andjelic He said that the aim of that text was solely to "dehumanize and criminalize" his brother.
He added that the text shocked him and that after it was published, he contacted his godfather, a doctor, to prescribe him some tranquilizers and heart medication. When asked by the judge, he said that he did not have a medical report on the matter.
Asked if he had sent a denial to "Vijesti", Vučić said that he had not, because "there is no point - they will lie again."
During his presentation, he said that in the past, when "untruths were spread about him and his family," he had always sued individuals and that he had never sued the media before - "because I respect the freedom of the media."
"Only tycoon media, namely Vijesti and Nova S from Serbia, because they write on the orders of the same boss," said Vučić.
Because of that statement, Judge Anđelić admonished him twice and warned him of the possibility of a fine or removal from the courtroom.
SLAPP THUMB
Spaić also explained that the boundaries of permissible criticism and public interest are wider for public figures, including family members of high-ranking officials, emphasizing that she is not surprised that the brother of the Serbian President resorted to the pattern of silencing Vijesti, because, as she claims, Serbia is the first in the number of SLAPP lawsuits filed.
"As is known for public figures, including family members of high-ranking officials, the limits of permissible criticism and public interest are wider than for private and anonymous persons. Namely, the right to privacy is narrowed when there is a legitimate public interest in information concerning their activities, conduct or benefits arising from family ties," she said.
Spaić said that Serbia is the first in the region in terms of the number of SLAPP lawsuits filed against the media and other actors on the public stage, "so it is not surprising that the brother of the Serbian President resorted to the same pattern of silencing in the 'Vijesti' case, transferring negative trends to Montenegro."
"It is precisely these lawsuits - SLAPP lawsuits - that are often filed by public figures or their relatives in order to discourage reporting on issues of public interest, which further confirms that family members of high-ranking officials are also treated as public figures in the context of protecting freedom of expression and public interest. The fact that the plaintiff did not exercise the right to deny indicates that this is a classic SLAPP, which is the subject of legislative initiatives at the EU and Council of Europe levels," Spaić assessed.
“THE PEOPLE WERE AMAZED”
Andrej Vučić told the judge yesterday that he felt terrible when the text was published:
"When the text came out, I felt terrible, people were amazed. None of the journalists called me to ask anything," Vučić said.
Before the judge, Anđelić claimed that he had no connection whatsoever with Milović and Božović.
"It's not my level to communicate with criminals," he said, emphasizing that he has no companies or businesses, and that he is a family man "who has worked at the National Bank of Serbia for 28 years."
Vučić did not deny knowing Veselinović, but characterized him as an "acquaintance" with whom he had only met a few times at public gatherings. He denied any closeness or knowledge of his possible criminal activities.
In addition to journalists, the hearing was also attended by the editor-in-chief of Prva TV. Drazen Zivkovic and MP and President of the Democratic People's Party Milan Knezevic.
At the previous hearing held in April, Vučić's lawyer, Tomica Knezevic and lawyer for the publisher of "Vijesti" Siniša Gazivoda They discussed the Sky application and whether Andrej Vučić is a public figure.
Gazivoda disputed the basis of the lawsuit and pointed out that the disputed text relies on allegations from Sky communications between other individuals, and that journalists cannot be held liable for this. He referred to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, arguing that journalists are not obliged to distance themselves from cited sources if they clearly present their character.
"Courts in Montenegro have already considered the Sky correspondences as evidence. If they are sufficient for the court, they are not prohibited for the media either," Gazivoda said, adding that Vučić has political influence as a member of the executive board of the Serbian Progressive Party (SNS).
Lawyer Knežević claimed the opposite - that the published text was not clearly marked as correspondence from the Sky application, nor was it made clear to readers that these were allegations from the criminal milieu.
"The text was presented as if it were the absolute truth," said Knežević, adding that this undermines not only his client's reputation, but also his safety.
Gazivoda presented evidence before the court from the SNS website and social networks that Vučić holds a political position and power, which classifies him as a public figure.
Knežević, on the other hand, claimed that Vučić is not present in the media, does not expose himself to the public, and that his mention occurs solely due to family ties.
He doesn't know Lukač, he hates hunting...
The brother of the President of Serbia, commenting on the messages from Sky, published in the text, in which Božović writes that Andrej Vučić and Veselinović, together with the then Minister of Police of Republika Srpska, Dragan Lukač went hunting by helicopter, said he had never seen or heard of Lukač in his life.
"I am not a hunter, I hate hunting, and I hate anyone who kills animals. I have never ridden in a helicopter in my life," Vučić said at today's hearing.
At the hearing, the judge read a part of the text published in Vijesti, in which it is written that Božović claims that "my guys" fought with Veljko Belivuk Nevolja and the police for him and Andrej.
Andrej Vučić responded by saying that he did not know which guys were involved.
"...Secondly, these allegations are incorrect, because it was this Velja Nevolja who was working on my brother's head on the orders of crime bosses from Montenegro," Vučić said.
What is a SLAPP lawsuit?
According to available literature, SLAPP is an abbreviation for the English name Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, which is a form of abuse of justice, most often by powerful individuals, companies or political actors, with the aim of intimidating, financially exhausting or silencing journalists, activists, researchers, trade unionists or others who deal with issues of public interest.
The intention of the filer of SLAPP lawsuits is to intimidate, not to win the lawsuit, as the filer often knows that the lawsuit is legally unfounded, but the goal is to discourage the defendant and avoid further public debate.
These lawsuits are often very expensive to defend, which can force the defendant to give up public action or reporting. These lawsuits drag on for years, further burdening the defendant psychologically and logistically.
The most common form of SLAPP lawsuits are lawsuits in which it is claimed that the plaintiff's reputation has been damaged by the expression of opinions or information.
Some of the goals of SLAPP lawsuits are to reduce transparency and accountability of powerful actors, and to create a "chilling effect" - an effect in which other potential critics refrain from speaking out publicly for fear of lawsuits.
Bonus video:
