The Independent Journalists’ Association of Serbia (IJAS) expresses serious concern over the first-instance ruling of the Higher Court in Belgrade ordering Radio Broadcasting Company 021 and editor-in-chief Slobodan Krajnović to pay RSD 70,000 in compensation for non-pecuniary damage for harm to the honour and reputation of Nemanja Šarović, as well as RSD 85,300 in legal costs.
We believe that this ruling raises serious questions regarding the application of freedom of expression standards, represents yet another blow to the media, and may have a chilling effect on their work, particularly when reporting on political events of public interest and conveying statements made by public officials.
In this particular case, the 021 portal did not independently produce or make the disputed claims about Nemanja Šarović. As the judgment itself establishes, on 26 November 2024 the portal reported information originally published by RTS, clearly identifying the source and the person who made the statement, and placing the disputed words in quotation marks. The statements in question were made by then Speaker of the National Assembly Ana Brnabić, and 021 reproduced her statement without any substantial alterations, also indicating where it had originally been published.
This fact is crucial when assessing the responsibility of the media. There is a fundamental difference between a journalist personally claiming that someone is a “Đilas-paid mercenary” and reporting to the public that the Speaker of the National Assembly made such a claim. In this case, the subject of the reporting was the public statement made by a public official and politician itself, rather than the media presenting that statement as an established fact.
We find it particularly problematic that, despite the source having been clearly identified, the ruling effectively imposes on media outlets an obligation to establish the truthfulness of political statements before reporting them. Such a standard could lead to a situation in which the media would no longer be able to report statements by public officials without first conducting their own investigation into their veracity. This would seriously restrict the public’s right to know what public officials have said and would place pressure on the media to avoid reporting on politically sensitive issues.
It is also particularly concerning that the court did not make a sufficiently clear distinction between statements of fact and value judgments. An expression such as “Đilas-paid mercenary”, in the context of political discourse, may constitute a political characterisation and a value judgment rather than a necessarily verifiable statement of fact. The media cannot be required to prove the truthfulness of a value judgment in the same way as they would be required to prove the existence of a specific event or fact.
IJAS recalls that freedom of expression enjoys particularly strong protection when it concerns political speech and matters of public interest. The limits of acceptable criticism are wider in relation to public and political figures, who are required to display a greater degree of tolerance towards public scrutiny and criticism than private individuals. The European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly confirmed this standard in its case law.
In this case, the reporting concerned a political event – incidents in the National Assembly – and a statement made by the Speaker of the National Assembly to the public service broadcaster. The court should have taken into account not only the claimant’s right to protection of honour and reputation, but also the importance of the public’s right to be informed, the role of the media in democratic scrutiny of those in power, and the consequences that such a ruling may have for future reporting.
It is highly significant that the disputed article merely reproduced information that had already been published by another media outlet, as the court itself acknowledged. In such cases, the European Court of Human Rights requires a careful assessment of the context, the source of the information, and the manner in which the journalist presented the disputed allegations, rather than automatically transferring responsibility for the content of a third party’s statement to the media outlet that reported it.
The case law of the European Court of Human Rights, including landmark judgments such as Jersild v. Denmark and Thoma v. Luxembourg, clearly establishes that media outlets should not be penalised for neutrally reporting statements made by third parties on matters of public interest. Reporting on what key political actors in a country say is a fundamental duty of the media, while the public has an indisputable right to be informed about such statements in a timely manner.
IJAS warns that confirming such a standard could lead to self-censorship: media outlets may begin avoiding reporting statements by politicians, public officials and other actors in public life out of fear that they could be held liable for the content of those statements.
The protection of honour and reputation is a legitimate aim, but it must not be pursued in a manner that requires media outlets to assume responsibility for every statement made by a public official. Otherwise, the protection of personality rights may become an instrument for restricting the public’s right to information and narrowing the space for free political debate. Penalising media outlets that professionally and faithfully report statements made by politicians does not contribute to protecting honour and reputation; it merely creates an atmosphere of fear and stifles free public debate.
Independent Journalists’ Association of Serbia (IJAS)
Belgrade, 19 August 2026
