The verdict is an incentive for new attacks on "Vijesti"

Judge Ana Perović-Vojinović of the Basic Court of Podgorica rejected, as unfounded, the lawsuit of "Daily Press" against the state of Montenegro.

The lawsuit demanded monetary compensation, of a little over eight thousand euros, due to the burning of the vehicle of the newspaper "Vijesti" because the state did nothing to protect the property and employees of that newspaper.

According to the verdict of judge Perović-Vojinović, the claim is groundless, because "state responsibility" for terrorist attacks and violence against employees of the daily "Vijesti" has not been proven, as claimed in the lawsuit.

The lawyer of "Daily Presa" Veselin Radulović filed an appeal to the High Court against the verdict, stating that it was illegal, incomprehensible and that the judge did not explain how she evaluated the evidence used by the court in the dispute between "Daily Presa" and the state.

He asked the High Court to change the verdict, by adopting the lawsuit against the state or to cancel it and return the proceedings to the beginning.

According to the verdict of judge Perović-Vojinović, the claim is groundless, because "the responsibility of the state" for terrorist attacks has not been proven.

He points out that the judge gave partial marks only in the part where it was necessary to protect the "honor and reputation" of Milo Đukanović, the current head of the Democratic Party of Socialists and former prime minister, who was accused by the lawsuit of inciting attacks on the daily because of its critical coverage.

"Daily Press" filed a lawsuit against the state after the investigation started last year did not lead the prosecutor's office and the police to those who set fire to four vehicles in July and August 2011, but also to a series of physical attacks on employees that preceded the burning of the vehicles.

It didn't go beyond "suspicion"

They did not move beyond "suspicion" in the case of burning the vehicle, with the unofficial explanation that there is no evidence to identify the culprits by name and surname.

According to the verdict, there is no evidence that the state is responsible for the violence according to "Vijesti", and according to the court's assessment, it could be said that the acts of terror and violence are directed against the constitutional order.

The conditions for the state's responsibility have not been met either, as the competent institutions have not shed light on the attacks on the employees and property of the "Daily Press".

He does not dispute that freedom of expression is threatened by those acts, but he adds that it is not absolute and that it is also regulated by the European Convention on Human Rights and the Media Act.

As for the specific case, the court does not find the state responsible.

According to the verdict, the attacks on "Vijesti" are acts of violence, but there is no evidence that these actions were solely motivated by political goals directed against the state order and security of the state, which is necessary for the mentioned events to have the characteristics of terror and not to intimidate the population.

The court gives legitimacy to the pressures

With an appeal, the lawyer points out to the High Court that, according to the reasoning of the judge, the purpose of burning the plaintiff's vehicle is "peace, it sends a message of love and cannot intimidate the population, not even the plaintiff's employees."

"Therefore, the impugned judgment, in addition to being illegal, is also an incentive for further attacks on the plaintiff's property and person, because the first-instance court openly believes that acts of violence against the plaintiff are not aimed at intimidation and that such acts will not be held accountable. The first-instance court's conclusion that there is no evidence that the acts to the detriment of the 'Daily Press' were intended to seriously intimidate the population or to seriously destabilize or destroy the basic social structures of Montenegro is unfounded and even unreasonable, because just the burning and destruction of four vehicles in such a short period of time interval is proof in itself that those acts are aimed at intimidating the prosecutor's employees and destabilizing all independent media in Montenegro", states Radulović in the complaint.

Judge Perović-Vojinović appreciates that "Vijesti" does not only write about daily political events and Montenegrin politicians, but also covers other topics, so "based on the evidence, it cannot be concluded that the burning of vehicles has an exclusively political background."

According to her explanation, the court has no doubts that the burning of vehicles was aimed at "Vijesta" and aimed to intimidate journalists, but also that this profession carries the risk of journalists being exposed to various pressures in the formation of public opinion.

The lawyer states in the appeal that with such an attitude the court openly encourages and gives legitimacy to the pressure on the "Daily Press".

The court does not doubt that the burning of vehicles was aimed at "Vijesta" and aimed to intimidate journalists, but also that this profession carries the risk of journalists being exposed to various pressures in the formation of public opinion.

He points out that the Basic Court ignored the fact that the state authorities did not take any action in a year to shed light on the criminal acts to the detriment of the Daily Press, thereby approving the state's lack of interest in shedding light on the attacks on "Vijesti".

The appeal states that the judge ignored the position of the European Court of Human Rights that the state has an obligation to protect journalists and publishers from intimidation, harassment and violence and that this obligation does not arise after extreme consequences occur, but before them.

Ivanovic is honest, but subjective when he blames Milo

According to the verdict, the suspicions of "Daily Press" about state terror towards the media were not proven either, because there is no causal connection between state responsibility and harmful actions.

Although the testimony of the executive director of "Daily Presa" Željko Ivanović "seemed sincere" to the court, "it was not convincing, because it was clearly imbued with deep subjectivity, given that it was clearly aimed at an individual - Milo Đukanović, whom he labeled as the culprit of all the misfortunes which found a media institution headed by him".

"Well, without providing evidence as to how Đukanović and the highest state officials put into service the state apparatuses on whose orders it constantly causes damage to the 'Daily Press', the logical question arises as to why the prosecutor did not stand up with a lawsuit against the president of the DPS and the former prime minister Đukanović, is already demanding compensation from the state," the verdict reads.

Radulović states that the court did not take into account Ivanović's allegations about the burning of vehicles, physical attacks on five employees of "Vijesti", as well as more than 60 proceedings initiated against "Daily Press".

"She did not appreciate the fact that the acts of violence were always after Đukanović's public appearances, that the prosecutor's employees suffered physical violence from high-ranking officials of the DPS... and they were not informed about any attack on the property and employees of 'Vijesti' ", he said.

There is no protection until someone is killed

Lawyer Radulović points out in his appeal that the court did not take into account the statement of the representative of Željko Ivanović - that only "Vijesti" and "Dan", whose editor-in-chief was killed, reported critically about Đukanović.

"It is incomprehensible, but for the prosecutor and expected, the court's effort to necessarily protect Đukanović from Ivanović's allegations. However, the claim is aimed at the state, and not at Đukanović, who from the position of DPS president and former prime minister implicitly incited the attacks," the lawsuit says.

He believes that such a verdict sends a clear message to the entire public that the publisher of "Vijesti" cannot enjoy protection, until at least seven people associated with the newspaper are killed, until the sellers and distributors of "Vijesti" are attacked with a knife, until they are the target of attacks with explosives. devices, until "Vijesti" stops publishing and until the police detain at least 107 employees and seize property.

"Until then, it is obvious that the first-instance court will exclusively and only worry about how to protect Đukanović from the ``deep subjectivity'' and directed attacks" of the prosecutor, states the lawyer.

Gallery