SLAPPs hurt journalists and whistleblowers alike: Pištaljka’s Experience
Author: Vladimir Radomirović, Editor in Chief of Pištaljka
Contributors: Ed Haswell, Communications Officer and Anna Myers, Executive Director of the Whistleblowing International Network (WIN)
Date Published: 07 May 2025
The definition of Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (SLAPP) is simple: it is an abusive lawsuit filed by a private party with the purpose of silencing critical speech.[1] Such lawsuits are aimed at journalists, whistleblowers, activists, academics - basically anyone the private party wishes to stop from shining a light on their activities or conduct. These abusive claims often start with threatening legal letters to intimidate and burden (emotionally and financially) those receiving them. This means that those working in the public interest to investigate, expose, deter and stop abuses of power and wrongdoing can be put under extreme pressure over long periods of time.
The longstanding WIN membership organisation, Pištaljka (’The Whistle’) in Serbia, is an independent journalist platform and a whistleblower protection organisation. Its journalists investigate stories, many of which are brought to them by whistleblowers and anonymous sources. Its lawyers provide independent advice and will submit official complaints about wrongdoing or abuses of power on behalf of whistleblowers to the right authorities and represent them in court if they are facing or experiencing retaliation. Pištaljka will work out when to publish a story and will forego publishing altogether if doing so would harm the whistleblower with whom they are working.
While journalists and media platforms like Pištaljka typically take the heat directly when the subjects of their stories try to stop them being published or investigated further. Sometimes, of course, the whistleblowers are directly targeted as well. The nature of these claims and the extent to which SLAPPs are used as a weapon against the public’s right to know is alarming and the strain – in financial, time and resource terms - for small independent civil society organisations like Pištaljka is enormous. Some organisations do not survive the onslaught.
Pištaljka’s experience
In its nearly fifteen years of existence, Pištaljka has been sued by two current government officials, two officials from the former government, and one sports official. However, the number of lawsuits lodged against the media platform is almost double the number of claimants because some have sued multiple times.
Four lawsuits, one claimant
Aleksandar Senić is an official of the ruling Serbian Progressive Party who has sued Pištaljka four times, primarily related to articles Pištaljka published detailing supposed theft of funds intended for building a wastewater treatment plant in Rača. Pištaljka also revealed that Senić’s children, aged six, nine, and eleven at the time, were registered owners of a number of different companies that, despite never making any profit, raised capital via investments allegedly made by the children. After Pištaljka published an investigation into the companies, Senić sued on behalf of his children.
Although Aleksandar Senić did not deny the allegations against him or his family in any of the lawsuits he brought, he demanded that the articles be removed from Pištaljka’s website. Senić then sued Pištaljka after one of its journalists appeared on television and talked about the articles the media platform had published. Senić did this after having lost one court case and apparently realising his strategy of lawsuit-bombardment had failed to stop Pištaljka reporting on abuses related to the construction of the plant. Adding to the drain on Pištaljka’s time and resources, Senić filed one of the claims at a court which has no jurisdiction over media disputes but is located in his hometown where he holds considerable influence. Pištaljka has spent three years fighting to have the case transferred to a court of competent jurisdiction which has meant there has not yet been any hearing on the merits.
However, the courts have ruled decisively in favour of Pištaljka in two of Senić’s lawsuits, and the Serbian courts have recognised the legal basis of Pištaljka’s reporting. “This kind of investigation is necessary in any democratic society striving to combat corruption and all other forms of illegality,” stated one of the final court decisions.[2]
Despite these rulings in favour of Pištaljka, nothing prevents officials from continuing to file abusive lawsuits. In fact, the frequency of such claims has increased in the past five years and the courts are failing to recognise that these cases represent a weaponisation of the legal system. So far, no Serbian court has dismissed a lawsuit on the basis that it has no merit and constitutes a SLAPP. Even without a specific law to combat SLAPPs[3], the Serbian courts could use existing legal provisions to prevent the harassment of journalists through prolonged legal proceedings—something they are not doing.
Two lawsuits, one claimant
A particularly egregious case is the criminal complaint filed by the Secretary-General of the Rowing Federation of Serbia, Vladimir Antić seeking a 2-year jail term against one of Pištaljka's journalists. The district court decided to hear the case despite Pištaljka arguing the case should be dismissed as journalists in Serbia are legally exempt from criminal prosecution for defamation.
In fact, Antić has sued Pištaljka twice. The first was for an article in which Pištaljka reported that the leadership of the Rowing Federation of Serbia had retaliated against whistleblowers who had pointed out financial irregularities in their operations. After two whistleblowers were fired and another forced to resign, World Rowing and the Serbian Olympic Committee both revealed the Rowing Federation had mismanaged its finances and incurred significant debts, thus failing to fulfil its international obligations. As a result, World Rowing suspended Serbia from participating in international competitions and the Serbian state intervened to repay the debts out of its reserve budget.
Vladimir Antić sued Pištaljka a second time for an article informing the public that he had sued them in the first place. This was the criminal complaint in which he demanded the journalist be jailed for two years, not for the content of the article but for the accompanying image. Antić claims the journalist committed a criminal act because of a photograph of him as Secretary-General of the Rowing Federation of Serbia that accompanied the article online; a photograph properly attributed as coming from the official website of the Federation, a sports association funded by the government.
Both cases are ongoing.
Single lawsuits, single claimants
Pištaljka won a final judgment in a case filed by Vladan Skadrić, the former director of the state company ‘Public Fallout Shelters’. Like Aleksandar Senić and Vladimir Antić before him, Vladan Skadrić did not deny any of the allegations set out in Pištaljka’s article. He filed the lawsuit on the basis that he believed, despite its accuracy, that the publication damaged his reputation. Pištaljka revealed that while he was still head of the state company, Skadrić, whose own company held construction permits for two mini-hydroelectric plants worth 1.65 million euros, was suspected of money laundering, although he was never formally investigated by the authorities.
Pištaljka is also being sued by a former government official who is now the leader of Serbia’s largest opposition party. Like the other claimants, Dragan Djilas demanded the removal of information published by Pištaljka despite it being supported by material evidence. The article revealed that the annual accounts of Serbia’s public broadcaster, Radio-Television Serbia (RTS,) failed to pass an audit due to disputed advertising contracts with two companies, one of which Djilas had ownership in until 2014. The company’s work with RTS started under Djilas’ management. However, Djilas claims Pištaljka’s headline that connected him to the company, now owned by the media mogul Dragan Šolak, is wrong.
At a recent hearing on 4 April 2025 Djilas agreed this was one of the “more ridiculous” lawsuits he had filed as Pištaljka is well-known for its factual reporting. He stated in court that he had won 150 lawsuits against other media outlets and then went on to make threats against Pištaljka’s Editor-in Chief, Vladimir Radomirović and Pištaljka’s lawyer.
Finally, earlier this year, Pištaljka received notice of a lawsuit lodged by Zorana Marković, the former director of the Serbian Anti-Corruption Agency and now an employee of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). Marković is alleging reputational damage as a result of an article Pištaljka published based on documentary evidence. The article reported that Serbia had issued an international warrant for Marković’s arrest after she failed to appear at a criminal trial in Serbia over mismanagement during her time at the ACA. Following Pištaljka’s article, the prosecutor’s office in Serbia dismissed all charges against Marković.
Pištaljka’s SLAPP Summary
Out of the nine SLAPP lawsuits against Pištaljka, the courts have ruled in favour of Pištaljka in three, and six others are ongoing. The only ruling against Pištaljka so far was based on a judge’s false statement that the Editor-in-Chief of Pištaljka, Vladimir Radomirović, had admitted during the trial that the article was not done with due journalistic care. This ruling was overturned on appeal and has been returned to court for reconsideration.
In each of these lawsuits the demands have ranged from the removal of information from the internet and/or monetary compensation ranging from 10,000 dinars to 650,000 dinars (which if awarded would set Pištaljka back financially and mean it was unable to cover the salaries of some staff), to the outrageous demand for a two-year prison sentence against one of its journalists.
Like the whistleblowers it works with, Pištaljka finds itself the target of retaliation by those who want their wrongdoing to go unnoticed and unpunished. SLAPPs are meant to exhaust the media and divert their attention from further investigations of corruption. By defending itself and protecting the brave Serbian whistleblowers who speak out about abuses of power, Pištaljka helps bring out the truth and raise awareness of the wrongdoing. At the same time, Pištaljka strives to bring attention to the use and impact of SLAPPs and the people who are bringing such claims to ensure that judges and policy makers aware of the pattern and systematic nature of these abusive claims and use whatever powers they have to stop them at a much earlier stage.
Now we turn to what is happening in Europe to address the issue of SLAPPs and what we all can do to help.
What’s happening in Europe
For those who are already aware of SLAPPs, Pištaljka’s experience with these lawsuits will be all too familiar, as reports are increasing of SLAPPs against journalists, whistleblowers, academics and activists investigating and disclosing information about wrongdoing and abuses of power. Of course, there are important individual reputational and due process rights that should be protected by law, but SLAPP suits are not about protecting such rights, they are about silencing criticism, public debate and those acting in the public interest by disclosing important information.
It has taken a lot of work by engaged NGOs to reveal the pattern in different countries, regionally or globally, because when the law is weaponised in this way, it is a constellation of hundreds of individual cases that those targeted too often battle against alone. Such cases can start and end with threatening legal letters that intimidate and scare people and organisations into silence and accommodation to the bullies without the cases ever being heard.
It is not easy to contemplate, let alone actively defend oneself in a court of law. And in too many instances, the money and power of the claimants is so great that even if one can successfully defend oneself, the costs are so high – financially, psychologically and in terms of time and resources – that a ‘win’ is in fact a serious loss.
Some countries have enacted anti-SLAPP legislation, and in Europe, the legal landscape is changing fast. The EU adopted a Directive in 2024 (Directive 2024/1069) to protect individuals who engage in public participation from manifestly unfounded claims or abusive court proceedings (‘Strategic lawsuits against public participation’). This Directive represents a valuable step in safeguarding against SLAPPs, but the process of transposing it into the legal frameworks of the 27 EU member states will take several years with varying degrees of effectiveness, depending on national politics and circumstances.
The Council of Europe has also acted on these issues, having actively focused on and advocated for the protection of whistleblowers and independent media and journalism for many years.
On 5 April 2024, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe adopted Recommendation CM/Rec(2024)2 on countering the use of strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs). Alarmed by the chilling effect that SLAPPs have on freedom of expression and public participation, the Committee of Ministers urged the member States to devise comprehensive and effective strategies to counter SLAPPs.
The EU Directive 2019/1937 on the protection of whistleblowers, a further measure to safeguard those who speak out or act in the public interest, has taken several years since its adoption by the EU Parliament in 2019 to be transposed into the legislation of EU member states. While this indicates a potentially longer wait for those victimised by SLAPPs to receive protection, courts in places like Poland used the EU Directive on whistleblower protection in cases prior to adopting a national law, a practice that other European courts are likely to support in similar situations.
What can be done, and who is helping?
Many organisations are working to help protect those hit with SLAPPs, including those in the Whistleblowing International Network (WIN). A major force is the Coalition Against SLAPPs in Europe (CASE), a coalition of non-governmental organisations in the EU that have united to expose the misuse of SLAPPs. It provides resources to educate and protect individuals from SLAPPs and advocates for legal reform to safeguard against SLAPPS across the EU. Part of CASE’s mission to highlight SLAPP users includes showcasing the most egregious offenders in their 2025 European SLAPP competition based on 2024 cases.
Index on Censorship, an international non-profit organisation, is releasing a new online tool “Am I Facing a SLAPP”on 27 May 2025. This tool aims to support anyone facing legal threats or actions, including whistleblowers and journalists, who want to determine whether their experience could constitute a SLAPP. Utilising a robust methodology developed by leading anti-SLAPP experts, the tool empowers users to quickly and confidentially answer a few questions about their experiences.
Some aficionados of SLAPPs choose to lodge their claims in the UK, performing what is known as “libel tourism” due to the limited protections against SLAPPs and the high legal costs defendants typically have to bear. The Foreign Policy Centre and Index on Censorship set up the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition to support and encourage the adoption of anti-SLAPP measures in the UK and those facing SLAPPs.
These are but a few of the organisations and initiatives working to help protect those receiving SLAPPs across the world. According to WIN’s Executive Director, Anna Myers, it is vital that networks like WIN and CASE continue to raise awareness of how people in power are weaponising the legal process against whistleblowers and journalists to ensure the public and the authorities can’t hold them to account when needed.
“SLAPPs are a deliberate ploy by people with power and money to evade accountability, sometimes even criminal liability for their conduct. We want to show how SLAPPs are taking up the precious time and resources of a well-respected and publicly trusted independent media platform and whistleblower protection organisation in Serbia. It is an unfair fight that those who wage it count on winning by whatever means and ‘protects’ wrongdoing and negligence. It is a direct hit to democratic accountability and one that we can ill-afford in Europe or anywhere else in the world.”
WHAT CAN YOU DO?
Find out more about the importance of whistleblowing by visiting WIN to see what NGOs around the world are doing to support whistleblowers – find resources, share their work, sign petitions, and donate if you can! Every little bit counts. Thank you!
Visit the websites of those fighting against SLAPPs to find out a whole lot more and check out CASE’s European SLAPP contest 2025, a humorous and valuable response to the legal bullies out there! Be ready to vote for the People’s Choice in 2026!!
Links to the organisations, networks and coalitions mentioned in this article for ease of access.
Pištaljka - https://pistaljka.rs/
Whistleblowing International Network – https://whistleblowingnetwork.org/
Coalition against SLAPPs in Europe – https://www.the-case.eu/
UK Coalition against SLAPPs - https://antislapp.uk/
Index on Censorship - https://www.indexoncensorship.org/
Foreign Policy Centre - https://fpc.org.uk/
[1] See definition on the Coalition Against SLAPPs in Europe (CASE) website https://www.the-case.eu/. WIN is a member of the Coalition, was on the Steering Committee from 2022-2025 and participates on the Legal Working Group.
[2] This was a ruling by the Court of Appeal in Belgrade – see https://pistaljka.rs/home/read/1120.
[3] Two major European legal instruments were adopted in the last two years. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe adopted Recommendation CM/Rec(2024)2 on countering the use of strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs). This instrument applies directly to Serbia as one of the 46 Member State of the Council of Europe – see more information on the CASE website. The European Union adopted Directive 2024/1069 on protecting persons who engage in public participation from manifestly unfounded claims or abusive court proceedings (‘Strategic lawsuits against public participation’) which requires its 27 Member States to transpose the Directive into their national legal and institutional frameworks – see more information on the European Commission website.