Update
Political context
In the last weeks before the elections, cases of violence remained unresolved, domestic and internat...
The Higher Court in Belgrade has granted CRTA's motion for an interim measure and prohibited Informer from republishing claims that CRTA is a criminal organization preparing bloodshed. The ban is addressed to the portal's editor-in-chief, Milovan Stanić, applies until the civil proceedings are concluded, and is backed by a penalty of RSD 100,000 in the event of non-compliance. The motion was filed on 6 October together with a lawsuit seeking a declaration that CRTA's personality rights, including its right to reputation, were violated. The defendant may appeal within 48 hours of the decision being served on him, and the court has 48 hours from receiving the appeal to rule on it.
The lawsuit concerns three Informer publications of 4 October that linked CRTA to a recording in which, according to Informer, lawyer Vladimir Tupanjac instructs students on how to attack the police. In these publications, CRTA was described as a "criminal organization" and an "intelligence-subversive outpost", with claims that it incites conflict, bloodshed and civil war.
The lawsuit also points to the timing. The contested content was published less than three weeks before the elections, at a time when CRTA is accredited to observe the electoral process. Given CRTA's role as an independent observation mission, linking it to alleged violence and criminal activity may discredit it and undermine trust in its work during the elections.
The measure does not mean that the court has already ruled on the lawsuit or established that the claims are untrue. That will be decided by the judgment.
The motion was filed under Article 115 of the Law on Public Information and Media, which requires the claimant to make probable that there is a concrete danger of the information being republished. CRTA considers it significant that the court recognized a concrete danger that, in the pre-election period, Informer would republish such claims, which would further damage CRTA's reputation. In doing so, the court has accepted, for now at the level of probability, that describing CRTA as a criminal and subversive organization exceeds the limits of permissible criticism.
The court recognized a concrete danger that, in the pre-election period, Informer would republish such claims, which would further damage CRTA's reputation
The lawsuit concerns three Informer publications of 4 October that linked CRTA to a recording in which, according to Informer, lawyer Vladimir Tupanjac instructs students on how to attack the police. In these publications, CRTA was described as a "criminal organization" and an "intelligence-subversive outpost", with claims that it incites conflict, bloodshed and civil war.
The lawsuit also points to the timing. The contested content was published less than three weeks before the elections, at a time when CRTA is accredited to observe the electoral process. Given CRTA's role as an independent observation mission, linking it to alleged violence and criminal activity may discredit it and undermine trust in its work during the elections.
The measure does not mean that the court has already ruled on the lawsuit or established that the claims are untrue. That will be decided by the judgment.
The motion was filed under Article 115 of the Law on Public Information and Media, which requires the claimant to make probable that there is a concrete danger of the information being republished. CRTA considers it significant that the court recognized a concrete danger that, in the pre-election period, Informer would republish such claims, which would further damage CRTA's reputation. In doing so, the court has accepted, for now at the level of probability, that describing CRTA as a criminal and subversive organization exceeds the limits of permissible criticism.
