Case Summary and Outcome

The Belgrade Court of Appeal upheld the Higher Court’s judgment, determining that the internet portal 24SEDAM harmed the reputation and honor of the plaintiff, Mr. Jovanović – Ćuta, by republishing an op-ed written by the then Prime Minister of Serbia and originally published on the Government’s official website. The Portal reported on statements made by the Prime Minister of Serbia in which she called the plaintiff “a failed investor in small hydropower plants and a jackass.” She also propagated false and unsubstantiated allegations about the plaintiff, namely that he was receiving foreign funding in order to cause harm to the State and its institutions. The Court based its decision primarily on the fact that the internet portal reproduced statements capable of causing reputational harm while relying solely on their prior publication on the Government’s official website and authorship by the Prime Minister—without conducting independent verification in line with journalistic due diligence or assessing whether their dissemination served a legitimate public interest. The Court noted that although the plaintiff is an opposition member of parliament who, as a public officeholder, is expected to tolerate a higher degree of criticism, the article republished by the portal contained nothing but a sensationalist and defamatory narrative and, as such, did not contribute to a political or general interest debate and was therefore deemed unlawful. Accordingly, the Court ordered the responsible editor and the publisher of the portal to pay the plaintiff 40,000 Serbian Dinars plus interest in non-pecuniary damages (equivalent to approx. $400 USD) for the violation of his honor and reputation.

Facts

The plaintiff, Aleksandar Jovanović – Ćuta, is an opposition Member of Parliament in the National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia, known for his longstanding activism in environmental protection. For several years, a prominent political-ecological issue in Serbia has revolved around the harmful activities of the foreign multinational company Rio Tinto—particularly its lithium mining in western Serbia. The plaintiff has emerged as one of the leading figures in the protests against Rio Tinto’s mining operations. It was precisely this activism that prompted the then Prime Minister, Ana Brnabić, to publish an op-ed which subsequently served as the basis for the plaintiff’s defamation lawsuit.

In the op-ed authored by the Prime Minister of Serbia which published on the official website of the Government, the plaintiff was described as “a failed investor in small hydropower plants and a jackass.” Furthermore, she propagated false and unsubstantiated claims regarding the plaintiff, alleging that he was receiving foreign funding with the intention of causing harm to the State and its institutions.

The plaintiff filed a defamation lawsuit before the High Court in Belgrade, against Dragana Milovanović, the editor-in-chief of the internet portal 24SEDAM, and Margaret Stanić, its publisher, after the media outlet republished the op-ed. Jovanović – Ćuta argued that the insults against him did not refer to his work as a public officer, and as such, were not protected political speech. The plaintiff also stated that, prior to the publication or republication of the text, no one from the defendant media outlet had contacted him to verify the information or to request a comment.

The defendants essentially argued that they merely reported the statements authored by the Prime Minister, which had already been published on the official website of the Government, and that the rules on defamation were not applicable, as the content constituted protected political discourse. On that basis, they denied any legal liability.

The High Court in Belgrade determined that the internet portal 24SEDAM damaged the plaintiff’s reputation and honor. The defendants appealed to the Court of Appeal in Belgrade, arguing that the first-instance court did not draw proper conclusions regarding the relevant facts and that it erroneously applied the law.

Decision Overview

The Court of Appeal in Belgrade confirmed the first-instance decision. The Court based the decision on the relevant legal norms contained in the Serbian Law on Public Information and the Media (LPIM). The main issue the Court analyzed was whether the defendants defamed the plaintiff by republishing an op-ed by the then-Prime Minister that contained false and unsubstantiated claims.

As noted by the Court, the LPIM in Art. 9 (2) prescribes a journalistic duty of care (a journalistic due diligence standard), which is reflected in the obligation of editors and journalists to verify sources attentively, and the veracity and comprehensiveness of information. This is especially important when dealing with potentially harmful facts.

Upon analyzing the specific case, the Court argued that the average reader may gain the impression that the plaintiff was indeed funded from abroad to destroy the State. When combined with the public dissemination of insults such as “jackass,” this contributes to the creation of a negative public image of the plaintiff. In that context, the Court concluded that a violation of the duty of due care occurred since the defendants did not attempt to verify the republished statements. The Court, discussing the role of the media in a society, stipulated that “The freedom of journalistic reporting is subject, in particular, to the requirement that the media act in good faith, provide accurate and reliable information in accordance with journalistic ethics, and adhere to established professional standards.” [p. 4]

The Court relied on the established principle that disseminating unlawful statements made by others, without expressly distancing oneself from such content, is impermissible and constitutes a valid basis for awarding non-pecuniary damages for harm to honor and reputation. The mere fact that an unlawful claim is already in circulation does not justify its further publication. In such circumstances, repeating another’s impermissible claim is treated as equivalent to making the claim oneself. On this basis, the Court rejected the defendants’ argument that they bore no legal responsibility for defamation. In line with such a legal position, the Court did not accept the argument that the defendants were not legally liable for defamation. It particularly weighed the republished content against the plaintiff’s personal rights and concluded that the latter prevailed, as the republished text lacked any capacity to contribute to public debate and, moreover, its content and sensationalist tone indicated that its sole purpose was to disparage the plaintiff.

The LPIM (Article 116) stipulates that journalists take no responsibility regarding the publishing of harmful information if the information is, inter alia, contained in a public document issued by a relevant authority. However, the Court argued that an authored text—even if its author is the Prime Minister and it is published on the government’s official website—cannot be legally treated as a public document (such as a decision, ruling, or order). Therefore, the grounds for exclusion laid out in Article 116 of the LPIM could not be applied.

Furthermore, the Court found that the offensive and aggressive remarks directed at the plaintiff neither related to his performance as a public official nor contributed to public or political debate. The Court emphasized the general principle that the public has no legitimate interest in being informed of false information.

Considering the above arguments, the Court ordered the defendants to compensate the plaintiff 40,000 Serbian Dinars plus interest (equivalent to approx. $400 USD) for the non-pecuniary damage caused by the infringement of his honour and reputation.