Judges of the Court of Appeal in Belgrade, Serbia, have reached a verdict against a journalist and editor from KRIK for reporting on the trial of Zoran Jotić Jotka’s criminal group. This included quoting a wiretapped conversation among the group members regarding the then-director of the Security and Information Agency (BIA), Bratislav Gašić.

Bratislav Gašić currently serves as the Minister of Defense of Serbia.

The judges asserted that journalists should have shown greater tolerance towards Gašić, who held the position of BIA director, stating that journalists are permitted to relay information but not to interpret it for their audience, as reported by KRIK.

“Considering we were sued by a prominent SNS official, someone who appears to hold more power than the courts, it’s hardly surprising that we lost this case,” remarked KRIK editor Stevan Dojčinović.

“What is most alarming about this ruling is its intent to censor and control the media, relegating them to mere conduits for official statements from Serbian institutions and the government.”

While the principle that public officials ought to be more accepting of criticism is universally acknowledged, judges in Serbia do not consistently uphold this, according to KRIK.

The ruling panel from the Belgrade Court of Appeal, presided over by Jelena Stojilković, concluded that journalists Milica Vojinović and Stevan Dojčinović should have exercised greater tolerance towards Gašić, due to his status as a public official.

The ruling states, “This is an official who serves as the director of the Security and Information Agency, from whom the public expects clear moral and professional competence, which compounds the negative impression the average reader may derive from the article,” following a lawsuit launched by Bratislav Gašić.

This, however, isn’t the only contentious aspect, KRIK notes.

In the report that led to their conviction, KRIK included an intercepted phone conversation from a member of Jotić’s criminal organization referring to Gašić as being “on the payroll” of Jotka. KRIK clarified that in this context, the phrase “to be on the payroll” implies that an individual is financially supported by someone, according to N1.

Judge Stojilković’s panel claims in the ruling that KRIK’s interpretation of the term is erroneous but fails to offer an alternative explanation of its meaning.

The judges argue, “The average reader cannot conclude that the expression ‘being on the payroll’ indicates that the plaintiff is receiving payment,” according to the ruling.

According to the decision, the judges believe that journalists are restricted to merely quoting what occurs in the courtroom, without providing additional clarity or context. This stance undermines the essential role and purpose of the media in any democratic society, as reported by KRIK.

The verdict asserts, “To cover the proceedings of the trial, it was unnecessary for the journalist to offer a personal interpretation of the expression ‘to be on the receiving end’. “

Furthermore, the ruling indicates that KRIK allegedly failed to distance itself from the claims made in the wiretapped conversation quoted in the news article, despite KRIK’s insistence that it accurately indicated these were statements made by one of the accused and represented courtroom proceedings.

“The defendant’s assertion of the veracity of the published information rests solely on the audio recording presented at the primary hearing of the Higher Court in Belgrade. However, the accuracy of the information disclosed cannot be ascertained based solely on this,” the ruling claims.

KRIK argues that judges misrepresent the issue by suggesting that their journalists claim Gašić received payments from the mafia rather than simply reporting on courtroom events. KRIK is required to compensate Gašić over 140,000 dinars (approximately 1,200 euros).

KRIK attorney Kruna Savović emphasizes the verdict’s troubling implications.

“The court’s resolution relays a hazardous message: the personal interests of select individuals take precedence over the public good. The court suggests that KRIK’s article represents ‘criticism that surpasses acceptable boundaries.’ If this is the standard for what is deemed acceptable, it becomes evident whose interests a journalist is expected to prioritize—certainly not the public’s.”

Željko Bodrožić, president of the Independent Journalists’ Association of Serbia, asserts that the ruling reflects significant pressure on the judiciary from the executive branch, indicating that judges cannot make decisions free from the influence of those in power.

“Such actions represent forms of pressure on free and independent journalism. Through legal measures, they inhibit our ability to report openly on the cases we cover and investigate. Journalists are not mere typists; we provide context based on our research and the connections we uncover.”

KRIK has announced plans to pursue all remaining legal options, including seeking a review of the ruling before the Supreme Court and filing an appeal with the Constitutional Court.

News