Case Summary and Outcome

The Higher Court in Belgrade (a single judge bench) upheld a defamation lawsuit brought by the current minister in the Serbian Government Bratislav Gašić (then a director of Serbian security agency) against the media outlet KRIK, its editor in chief and the author of the disputed article. The plaintiff raised the claim on the basis of an article published online which covered a criminal trial against well-known Serbian gangsters from Kruševac, the hometown of the plaintiff. The article reported that an intercepted audio recording of a private conversation mentioned the minister as a person financed by the criminals. More specifically, the persons recorded used a slang phrase – “to be on the cauldron” (Serb. “na kazanu”), which the article indicated meant that the plaintiff was on the payroll of the organized crime group. The judge ruled that such journalistic interpretation harmed the honor and reputation of the plaintiff and awarded him the pecuniary damage.

Facts

KRIK (the first defendant) is an investigative journalism online media outlet covering issues of organized crime and corruption. One of the KRIK’s journalists (the third defendant; Milica Vojinović) covered a murder trial of well-known criminals. During one of the hearings, several audio records were played in the courtroom. One of them mentioned that the current Serbian minister of internal affairs, Bratislav Gašić (then a director of  the Security Information Agency) was “on the cauldron” of criminal Zoran Jotić Jotka. KRIK published the article about the trial – “Political connections of the Kruševac criminal group: ‘Jotka had Gašić on the cauldron’”. The text clarified that the slang phrase (“on the cauldron”) meant that Gašić was being paid by a criminal called Jotka. The clarification goes as follows: “Director of Security lnformation Agency Bratislav Gašić was ‘on the cauldron’, i.e. on the payroll of a well-known Kruševac criminal Zoran Jotić Jotka, claims a member of this criminal group in a conversation that was wiretapped by the police, which was played at yesterday’s hearing” [p. 3].

KRIK tried to contact Gašić to get his comment via an email, but he did not respond and remained silent. After the article was published the third defendant spoke with Gašić over the phone and he said that he did not want to talk with KRIK. After the text was published, Gašić filed a lawsuit against KRIK, its editor in chief (Stevan Dojčinović) and the journalist that authored the article. The case was brought before the Higher Court in Belgrade.

Decision Overview

The Higher Court in Belgrade (a single judge Nataša Petričević Milisavljević) had to rule if the contested article had been defamatory and, thus, whether the honor and reputation of the plaintiff were harmed.

The plaintiff argued that the impugned article, in particular the headline, was defamatory, hence violating his honor and reputation. He did not dispute the veracity of the article in general, but claimed that the article and its title made public to believe that the he had ties with a criminal group in the city of Kruševac, the plaintiff’s hometown. Thus, the article represented an act of journalistic mala fide.

The defendants opposed, arguing that the article faithfully conveyed the content of the trial at which the third defendant had been present. Regarding the expression “to be on the cauldron”, they argued that their explanation in the article did not represent “an untrue claim of the defendants, but rather an explanation of a well-known domesticated metaphor” [p. 2]. They also indicated that they had tried to get the plaintiff’s comment, but to no avail. Defendants, in addition, pointed out that the minister was a public figure so he was obliged to show a higher degree of tolerance.

The judge ruled in favor of the plaintiff. She found that the defendants acted in accordance with Article 74 of the Law on Public Information and Media since the article was based on what was heard during the public hearing. On the same basis, the defendants’ acts were in accordance with Article 116 of the same Law which prescribes that there cannot be a liability for defamation if the published content is a faithful dissemination from a court trial. Nevertheless, the lawsuit was lodged due the title and the interpretation of the phrase “to be on the cauldron”. Such wording had damaged the honor and reputation of the plaintiff, opined the court. “Namely, the title of the text ‘Political connections of the Kruševac criminal group: Jotka had Gašić on the cauldron”’ represents the assertion of the existence of connections between the criminal group and the plaintiff, bearing in mind that the plaintiff is directly mentioned in the title of the text in question” [p. 9]. Such information “was suitable to harm the honor and reputation of the plaintiff” especially since Gašić was a director of an agency whose aim is to fight against crime, concluded the judge [p. 9].

The Court, further on, notes that the headlines of online articles aim to attract readers and to provide core information in a few words. The defendants overstepped the usual limits for headlines because the article mentioned various names and events, not just the plaintiff and events involving the plaintiff. The Court ruled that “the title of the text cannot be such that, as information, it insults the honor and reputation of the person to whom it refers”, indicating that a person is doing something illegal [p. 10]. Moreover, the judge took into consideration that the photographs of the criminal Jotka and the plaintiff were put together just below the title, emphasizing the importance of the title and the information that Gašić had ties with criminals.

Next, the judge decided that journalists must faithfully convey information from criminal trials and that they enjoy a certain degree of right to interpret the information. Still, such interpretation cannot “be such that it represents the publication of harmful information” [p. 10]. The phrase “i.e. on the payroll of the well-known Kruševac criminal Zoran Jotić Jotka” was such an interpretation. The article repeated such information by saying that the expression “to be on the cauldron” meant that a person received money from someone. The judge noted that the second defendant (Stevan Dojčinović, an editor in chief) had testified that the expression “to be on the cauldron” was generally known to the public. Such testimony, the judge found, was contrary “to part of his testimony that the defendants gave an additional explanation of this expression” [p. 10-11]. She continued by claiming that if the expression is generally known, then the headline and twice noting the meaning of the phrase “to be on the cauldron” did violate the plaintiff’s honor and reputation.

The Court found that all three defendants were liable according to Articles 113 and 114 of Law on Public Information and Media.

The plaintiff was awarded with 100.000,00 RSD (around 850 EUR). Among other factors relevant for the amount, the judge took into consideration the fact that the plaintiff was a public figure and a director of Security Information Agency and that reputation and honor of all employees of the Agency and the plaintiff’s family were violated. At the same time, the judge indicated that the status of public figure meant that Gašić was obliged to tolerate a higher level of criticism.

The second defendant was obliged to publish the judgment’s introduction and dispositive on the KRIK website. The defendants were obliged to compensate the costs of the court’s proceeding to the plaintiff in amount of 41.800,00 RSD (around 355 EUR).

The defendants indicate they shall appeal to the second instance court.