SLAPP in Montenegro: between hesitant courts and missed reforms

(Originally published by the Montenegro Media Institute  on 27 November 2025)

A high-ranking SNS official, brother of the President of Serbia, and businessman, Andrej Vučić, initiated proceedings against the daily newspaper Vijesti before the court in Podgorica in January this year for alleged violation of honor and reputation, which raised concerns among part of the Montenegrin public and was noted in this year’s report of the European Commission. The defense of the Podgorica daily described this case as a SLAPP, which by definition is a form of intimidation of the media, NGOs, and an attempt to silence critical voices. It is extremely rare for SLAPPs to be mentioned before courts in Montenegro, unlike in Serbia, where Andrej Vučić comes from, and which is one of the European record-holders in this form of pressure against journalists.

For the past few years, SLAPPs have been an ongoing threat to media freedom and freedom of expression across Europe. Institutions and civil society are, however, mobilising to tackle this issue and undertake the necessary measures to counter SLAPPs. In this context, the 2024 report of the Coalition Against SLAPPs in Europe (CASE),  although it doesn’t claim to be exhaustive, collects information on past and ongoing SLAPPs across Europe for the years 2010-2013. Curiously, in this report, Montenegro appears to be one of the few countries where no SLAPPs have been filed.

This strikes the reader’s attention since SLAPPs are a very common phenomenon in the region, especially in neighbouring countries. For instance, in Serbia , there are a total of 56 SLAPPs against either journalists, whistleblowers, NGOs, or other actors. 54 SLAPPs were also counted in Bosnia and Herzegovina, while Kosovo and Albania have, respectively, 5 and 6 SLAPPs.

Is Montenegro one of the few “happy islands” in Europe?

Considering the fact that, as it emerges from the CASE report, more than 80% of claimants of SLAPPs are either politicians or businesspeople and that around 67% of SLAPPs in Europe focus on issues like corruption, the environment, or politics, the fact that no SLAPPs were recorded in Montenegro is quite surprising, even more when we realise that the region is closely interconnected and very often political, environmental, and business interests have a transnational nature.

Part of the explanation lies in the fact that Montenegro’s legal system does not recognize SLAPP lawsuits, and judges have been reluctant to identify them in their rulings because, until recently, there were no criteria to treat such cases as attempts to intimidate journalists and activists.

There is also no case law from the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. Earlier rulings of that court encouraged domestic judges to dismiss high financial compensation claims in most proceedings against the media, and there were dozens of such cases, involving multimillion-euro amounts. In doing so, they protected the public’s right to be informed.

Although not as widespread as in other countries, several recent cases alarmed part of the domestic public due to decisions by the authorities to accept, rather than immediately dismiss, complaints which, in the view of experts, fall under SLAPP and are aimed at intimidation. These include proceedings initiated against historian Boban Batrićević, columnist and writer Branо Mandić, and journalist Vesna Rajković Nenadić. After strong public pressure, the authorities discontinued the proceedings in all three cases. The situation is additionally concerning because there are no mechanisms to support victims from legal, financial, or other related risks, and assistance remains voluntary.

Nature of SLAPP

While SLAPPs, by definition, are brought by private parties and not by the state, the fact that often politicians, acting in their private capacity, threaten or initiate SLAPPs somehow blurs the difference between private and public actors, especially in cases when, as it happened in Montenegro, public prosecutors act upon private reports by prominent politicians or persons very closely associated with them.

The same concept of public participation might be unclear to many: while instances like journalism or environmental activism are clear, other forms of public participation, like activism, boycotts, or whistleblowing, might be less known to the public. It is also possible that the purposes of the claimants are not always so clear to those affected by SLAPPs, and therefore, they might consider that they are facing a legitimate lawsuit. In this regard, disproportionate claims for remedies, delay tactics at court, and unsubstantiated allegations are all elements that further help identify SLAPPs as such.

Finally, sometimes even a too formal approach to SLAPPs can be misleading: it is not necessary for the lawsuit to be formally initiated, but a SLAPP can exist even if the lawsuit is simply threatened, for instance, by a letter sent by the claimant or their legal representative where they declare their intention to pursue legal avenues unless certain content is removed or amended. All these elements contribute to defining a SLAPP.

Remedies

The efforts of civil society in Montenegro to highlight the dangers of SLAPPs are encouraging, although timid and insufficient. Regional analyses of existing political and legal frameworks relating to SLAPPs in the region have been conducted. The reports published by the Civil Society Development Network, From Silence to Strength , and Challenges for the Rule of Law and Media Freedom in Montenegro, published by the Montenegro Media Institute and Osservatorio Balcani Caucaso Transeuropa, have identified additional cases of SLAPPs and other legal threats.

In Europe, civil society organisations have also been active and created practical tools to counter SLAPPs, as it is the case with the recently published CASE manual. In the region, NGOs and media have also been developing tactics to defend and protect themselves from SLAPPs. Ultimately, however, it is up to the governments to take positive measures to uphold media freedom and freedom of expression. The existing remedies at the European level need to be transposed into national legislation.

Both the European Union and the Council of Europe have recently adopted important legal texts that can help governments in dealing with SLAPPs. While the EU directive is somehow limited by the fact that it applies to cross-border SLAPPs (although this definition is quite broad), the COE recommendation outlines a great number of measures that can assist those targeted by SLAPPs, as well as the member states, to put in place measures to safeguard media freedom and freedom of expression from SLAPPs. These measures include, for instance, early dismissal of abusive claims, stays of proceedings, caps to the amount of legal damages that can be claimed, as well as measures like providing legal, financial, and psychosocial support to those being targeted by SLAPPs.

The existing remedies at the European level need to be transposed into national legislation. However, the authorities of Montenegro, which is one of the leading candidates for accession to the EU, have not really taken any significant steps to preempt this potential threat to media freedom. While the recently published EU progress report for Montenegro  praises Montenegro’s progress towards EU accession, there is no specific reference to measures taken to counter and prevent SLAPPs. This is further confirmed by special initiatives tracking the implementation of anti-SLAPP legislation: in the case of Montenegro, there are no known steps taken by authorities.

This publication is the result of activities carried out within the Media Freedom Rapid Response   co-funded by the EU and within ATLIB – Transnational Advocacy for Freedom of Information in the Western Balkans, a project co-funded by the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation. All opinions expressed represent the views of their author and not those of the co-funding institutions.

This content is part of the Media Freedom Rapid Response  (MFRR), a Europe-wide mechanism which tracks, monitors and responds to violations of press and media freedom in EU Member States and Candidate Countries. The project is co-funded by the European Commission.