Actually, it is exactly like that. Unless the Croatian courts use the standard of 'guilty until proven innocent,' you do have to prove your case to either a judge or jury.
Even before then, how bad did you really think it was if you made no attempt to have things taken down? And people can't take things down if you don't point to the offending parts.
AFAIK the only specific thing he's claimed was libellous was the use of the word "regularly" to describe his REGULAR use of prostitutes every 2-3 months for 4 years ... which is what he admitted to himself (and is likely an underestimation). So his only specific claim made him a laughing stock for his stupid, and now he refuses to point to anything, because he has nothing.
Of course he doesn't really want anything taken down and can't point to any alleged defamation, it's all pantomime. I think he's after a pointless "victory" (because no one is going to bother going to Croatia for some cock and bull case to defend against something he hasn't even complained about) and he'll then want to refer to that as proof he was right (forgetting that nothing has been proven).
Does he expect people to not be able to post anything on the internet at all? Or maybe not be able to comment on him at all. Now THAT is something he has a track record of demanding from people.
He can go whistle dixie.