JUDGMENT
The claim seeking to oblige the defendant to pay the plaintiff fair compensation in the amount of €10.000,00 as compensation for non-pecuniary damage due to copyright infringement is REJECTED as unfounded.
The claim is ADOPTED and the defendant is obliged to publish this judgment at his own expense in the electronic media in Montenegro, namely Vijesti, Dan and Pobjeda, within 8 days from the date the judgment becomes final.
Each party shall bear its own costs of the proceedings.
Explanation
By the decision of the Court of Appeal Pž.br.32/26 of 26.01.2026., the judgment of this court P.br.806/23 of 02.12.2025. in parts II, III and IV of the operative part of the judgment was revoked.
The plaintiff stated in the complaint and in his arguments at the hearing, through his attorney, that on December 30, 2022, he concluded an Agreement on the Assignment of Broadcasting Rights with the Tourist Organization of the Municipality of Budva. The subject of the aforementioned agreement is the assignment of broadcasting rights to the New Year's music and entertainment program on the occasion of the New Year's Eve 2023, on the square in Budva, and it is stipulated that the plaintiff has the exclusive right to broadcast the New Year's music and entertainment program on the occasion of the New Year's Eve 2023, on its second program and to rerun the classical music concert. However, contrary to the Law on Electronic Media and the Law on Copyright and Related Rights, the defendant rebroadcast the entire program that was assigned to the plaintiff with the exclusive broadcasting right by the aforementioned agreement on the same day, without the plaintiff's prior consent. He further states that in order to eliminate the harmful consequences and unauthorized broadcasting of the New Year's program by the defendant, the plaintiff on January 16, 2023. submitted a complaint to the Agency for Electronic Media regarding the work of the defendant. Examining the merits of the above complaint, the Agency for Electronic Media determined that the defendant had violated Article 68 of the Law on Electronic Media and Articles 29 and 135 of the Law on Copyright and Related Rights, and as an administrative supervisory measure for violating the aforementioned articles, it issued a warning to him and ordered the defendant to harmonize the broadcasting of program content within the television program with the standards defined in the Law on Electronic Media, the Law on Copyright and Related Rights, the Agency's bylaws and the issued broadcasting permit No. O-TV-J-4, and to publish information about the imposed measure. It also points out that pursuant to Article 68 of the Law on Electronic Media, it follows that the defendant did not request access to the content to which the plaintiff had the exclusive right to broadcast, in accordance with the contract on the assignment of broadcasting rights.
He particularly emphasized that pursuant to Article 19 of the Copyright and Related Rights Act and Article 29 of the same Act, it is stipulated that the plaintiff, as the author of the work, has the right to protection, and that pursuant to Article 135 of the said Act, he has the exclusive right to permit or prohibit the rebroadcasting of his program by another person.
In addition, pursuant to Articles 149, 207 and 209 of the Law on Obligations, the plaintiff is entitled to compensation for damages, because the defendant acted in violation of domestic positive regulations when he rebroadcast the New Year's program without authorization and thus committed an unlawful violation of the moral component of copyright, which ultimately resulted in non-pecuniary damage to the plaintiff.
In relation to the annulment allegations of the Court of Appeal, the plaintiff's attorney specifies the claim in paragraph three by proposing that the court oblige the defendant to publish this judgment at its own expense in electronic media in Montenegro, namely Vijesti, Dan I Pobjeda, within 8 days from the date the judgment becomes final.
The plaintiff's attorney, in response to a special question from the court, pointed out that the plaintiff's non-pecuniary damage is reflected in the loss of exclusivity and a smaller number of viewers, and that the amount of damage of €10.000,00 was determined at the plaintiff's discretion, taking into account the reduced number of views, with the plaintiff also taking into account the fact that the court in this defendant's claim decides in accordance with its discretion, i.e. awards fair compensation.
Finally, he proposed that the court adopt the claim by proposing that the court oblige the defendant to pay the plaintiff fair compensation in the amount of €10.000,00 as compensation for non-pecuniary damage due to copyright infringement, as well as oblige the defendant to publish this judgment at its own expense in the electronic media in Montenegro, namely Vijesti, Dan and Pobjeda, within 8 days from the date of the judgment becoming final. He requested the costs of the proceedings for the preparation of the claim, appeal, access to held and postponed hearings, all increased by VAT in the amount of 21%.
In his response to the lawsuit and his statements at the hearing, the defendant, through his attorney, essentially points out that the content in question was not taken from the plaintiff, but from Radio Television Budva, with whom he had a contract, and points out that the plaintiff never sent them a letter in writing warning him not to take over their content. He further states that on December 31, 2022, as part of the New Year's program, he broadcast a concert from Budva, taking over the signal of Radio Television Budva, based on the agreement between the director of the defendant and the director of Radio Television Budva, all in accordance with the Agreement on the Exchange of Program Content and Assignment of Broadcasting Rights concluded between these two local televisions on December 7, 2021. He further states that at the time of rebroadcasting the disputed program, the defendant did not know that the plaintiff allegedly had the exclusive right to broadcast the New Year's program because the defendant requested and received access to the content from Radio Television Budva. He also points out that the plaintiff did not have an exclusive right because the contract on the assignment of rights to which the plaintiff refers confirmed the plaintiff's obligation to hand over the signal to Radio Television Budva, which on this basis broadcast a live broadcast on New Year's Eve in parallel with the plaintiff.
It specifically points out that the claim for compensation for non-pecuniary damage is unfounded because, pursuant to Article 206, paragraph 2 of the Law on Obligations, it is stipulated that a legal entity enjoys protection of personal rights that do not arise from the natural characteristics of a person as a natural person. In addition, the rebroadcasting of the disputed program by the defendant did not and could not have resulted in a violation of the defendant's right to reputation.
The defendant's attorney, in relation to the Court of Appeal's rescission allegations, pointed out that the claim was unfounded, since exclusivity and lower viewership do not constitute non-pecuniary damage, nor a violation of personal rights, under either the Law on Obligations or the Law on Copyright and Related Rights.
In the final decision, he proposed that the court reject the plaintiff's request as unfounded. He requested costs of the proceedings for the composition of the response to the lawsuit, the composition of the appeal, and attendance at the held and postponed hearings, according to the AT.
In the evidentiary proceedings, the court inspected: the original contract on the assignment of broadcasting rights concluded between JP Radio and Television of Montenegro, the original complaint submitted to the agency on 10.01.2023, a scanned warning from Television Nikšić, the original contract on the exchange of program content and the assignment of broadcasting rights concluded between the local public broadcaster Radio Television Nikšić and Radio Television Budva. (The court notes that the aforementioned originals are returned to the parties' attorneys and copies are retained in the files). The court further inspected the submitted CD, but the parties pointed out that it was not necessary to inspect it at the hearing because they were familiar with its content. The court further inspected the Decision of the Agency for Electronic Media No. 02-67/5 of 15.02.2023, the statement of the Agency for Audiovisual Media Services of 25.03.2025, along with which they submitted the finding of 20.01.2023. and the Decision of 15.02.2023., and heard the legal representatives of the parties Boris Raonić and Nikola Marković.
After careful and conscientious assessment of the presented evidence, both each piece of evidence separately and in their mutual relationship and based on the results of the evidentiary procedure, within the meaning of Article 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, and taking into account the rescission arguments of the Court of Appeal, the court decided as in the dictum, for the following reasons:
In the present lawsuit, the plaintiff requests that the defendant be ordered to pay the plaintiff fair compensation in the amount of €10.000,00 as compensation for non-pecuniary damage due to copyright infringement, as well as to oblige the defendant to publish this judgment at its own expense in electronic media in Montenegro, namely Vijesti, Dan and Pobjeda, within 8 days from the date the judgment becomes final.
From the evidence presented - the Agreement on the Assignment of Broadcasting Rights, it follows that on December 30, 2022, the plaintiff concluded the contract in question with the tourist organization of the Municipality of Budva and that the subject of the contract is the assignment of the rights to broadcast the New Year's music and entertainment program on the occasion of the New Year's Eve 2023, on the square in Budva. It is stipulated that the plaintiff has the exclusive right to broadcast the New Year's music and entertainment program on the occasion of the New Year's Eve 2023, on its second program and the rerun of the classical music concert.
From the plaintiff's complaint on January 16, 2023 to the Agency for Electronic Media, it follows that he complained about the work of the defendant due to violation of Article 83 of the Law on Electronic Media and violation of Article 5, paragraph 2 of the Rulebook on Program Standards in Electronic Media.
From the evidence presented - the Agency for Electronic Media Decision No. 02-67/5 of 15.12.2023. it follows that, examining the merits of the above complaint, the Agency determined under item 1. that the defendant be issued a warning measure as an administrative-supervisory measure for violating Art. 68 of the Law on Electronic Media, Art. 29 and 135 of the Law on Copyright and Gender Rights and Art. 7.1. of the Broadcasting Permit No. O-TV-J-4 when broadcasting the New Year's program from the square in Budva on 31.12.2022. in the period from 20:30:08 to 23:59:59 hours and on 01.01.2023. in the period from 00:00:00 to 00:04:03 hours. While under item 2 it is stated that the warning from item 1 of this decision is pronounced due to the rebroadcasting of the program of the Public Company Radio and Television of Montenegro without the permission of the broadcaster, which is contrary to Articles 29 and 135 of the Law on Copyright and Related Rights. The above-mentioned decision precisely defines the exact terms of rebroadcasting, as well as all specific details relating to the manner and duration of rebroadcasting.
From the letter of the Agency for Electronic Media dated 25.03.2025., with which the Agency's finding No. 02-67/1 dated 20.01.2023. was submitted, it follows that the exact terms of rebroadcasting were precisely defined, as well as all specific details relating to the method and duration of rebroadcasting, and the above is confirmed by the CD recordings, and it is not disputed between the parties that the defendant broadcasts the above-mentioned New Year's program on the occasion of the New Year 2023 celebration organized by the Tourist Organization of the Municipality of Budva.
From the evidence presented - the Agreement on the exchange of program content and the assignment of broadcasting rights concluded between the local public broadcaster Radio and Television Nikšić DOO and Radio Television Budva concluded on 07.12.2021. it follows that the contracting parties agreed to exchange their own program content and assign the rights to broadcast it on their channels, in accordance with their program schedule and editorial policy of RTV Nikšić and RTV Budva.
The court also heard the legal representatives of the parties regarding the takeover of the program and their consent to it.
From the statement of the legal representative of the plaintiff Boris Raonić it follows that the subject content was not taken over in the manner prescribed by law by the plaintiff, and that for any cooperation with other national broadcasters there must be a written consent specifying exactly which program - autovisual work is taken over and broadcast in the program. He points out that the cooperation agreement for the New Year's program in question was with the Budva tourist organization, which according to his knowledge had some agreement with Radio Television Budva, in which way the plaintiff here acquired the right to broadcast the New Year's program on its television, while he did not have a business cooperation agreement concluded with the defendant here for a specific New Year's program. When asked specifically by the defendant what damage the plaintiff suffered due to this rebroadcasting of the program, the plaintiff's legal representative pointed out that it was a violation of copyright, which was reflected in a smaller number of viewers on their television, and that the plaintiff had expenses for cameramen and other employees who were engaged in that recording, i.e. The costs of producing that product, while the defendant took over all of that, and the plaintiff also lost the exclusive right.
The statement of the legal representative of the defendant Nikola Marković shows that it is common practice to take over and broadcast content between public broadcasters, and indicates that Radio Television Nikšić has been cooperating with Radio Television Montenegro for more than ten years and has taken over content from it every day. He states that as far as the content in question is concerned, the New Year's program, the defendant, in cooperation with Radio Television Budva and with the consent it has with them, took over the content in question in an agreement. He explains to the court that in this particular case, Radio Television Nikšić did not take over the content - the New Year's concert from Radio Television Montenegro, but rather, in accordance with the agreement it has with Radio Television Budva, obtained permission from Radio Television Budva to take over the signal of that television, so that in this way the program that was broadcast on Radio Television Budva was shown at the same time on Radio Television NK, and on that occasion, the program of Radio Television NK stated that the aforementioned program was taken over by the signal from Radio Television BD, i.e. in one corner of the screen was the logo of Radio Television NK, and in the other the logo of Radio Television BD. He particularly points out that the defendant did not know that there was an obligation to seek consent from the plaintiff, nor that their program was the exclusive right of Radio Television Montenegro, since he received the license to transmit the signal directly from Radio Television BD.
The court found the witness statements to be clear and precise, and given in accordance with the allegations in the complaint and the response to the complaint.
In the part of the judgment that became final, the court found that the defendant violated the plaintiff's copyright by rebroadcasting, without authorization and without the plaintiff's consent, the New Year's music and entertainment program on the occasion of the New Year 2023 celebration organized by the Tourist Organization of the Municipality of Budva.
The plaintiff accordingly requested that the defendant be obliged to publish this judgment at its own expense in the electronic media in Montenegro, namely Vijesti, Dan and Pobjeda, within 8 days from the date the judgment becomes final.
Article 29 of the Law on Copyright and Related Rights stipulates that the author has the exclusive right to permit or prohibit the simultaneous, unchanged and unabridged broadcasting of his work broadcast wirelessly by another broadcasting organization (right of rebroadcast).
Namely, pursuant to Art. 192 of the Law on Copyright and Related Rights, in the event of infringement of exclusive rights, the right holder may, among other things, request by means of a lawsuit that the infringement of rights be established at the expense of the infringers in paragraph 1, and that the judgment on the infringement of rights be published in paragraph 9. In the above-mentioned case, since the infringement of rights by the defendant has been established, the plaintiff, in accordance with the cited provision, has the right, in addition to the fact that the infringement of rights is established, to request, among other things, the publication of the judgment.
Based on the above, the court accepted the plaintiff's request and, in accordance with Article 192, paragraph 1, item 9 of the Law on Copyright and Related Rights, decided as in paragraph II of the operative part of the judgment.
The Court finds that the claim is unfounded in the part that requested that the defendant be ordered to pay the plaintiff non-pecuniary damages in the amount of €10.000 due to copyright infringement.
The provision of Article 206 of the Law on Obligations stipulates that (1) A natural person enjoys full protection of his personality. (2) A legal person enjoys protection of personality rights that do not arise from the natural characteristics of a person as a natural person. (3) The protection of personality rights prescribed by this Law (minimum protection) cannot be limited by a separate law.
While the provision of Article 207 of the Law on Obligations stipulates that personal rights are: the right to life, the right to physical (bodily) integrity, the right to psychological (mental) integrity, the right to freedom, the right to honor, the right to reputation, the right to protection of private life, the right to dignity, the right to one's own image, the right to one's own voice, the right to correspondence and personal records, the right to personal identity, the moral component of copyright, as well as other personal rights prescribed by the Constitution, ratified and published international treaties and generally accepted rules of international law and special laws.
In addition, the provision of Article 209, paragraph 1 of the Law on Obligations stipulates that a person whose personal rights have been unlawfully violated has the right to protection against any person who participated in it.
While the provision of Article 210a stipulates that in the event of a violation of personal rights, the court shall, according to the severity of the violation and the circumstances of the case, award fair monetary compensation, regardless of the compensation for material damage, as well as in the absence of material damage, while paragraph 2 of the same article stipulates that when deciding on a request for fair compensation and its amount, the court shall take into account all the circumstances of the case, and in particular the type, manner of infliction and permanent consequences of the injury, the age of the injured party, the occupation and general personal situation of the injured party, the fact whether the parties are insured, the economic situation of the harmdoer and the injured party, the duration of the unjustified deprivation of liberty, the purpose for which the monetary compensation serves, but also that it does not favor aspirations that are incompatible with its nature and social purpose.
The plaintiff, in this part of the claim, seeks compensation for non-pecuniary damage, which is reflected in the loss of exclusivity and a smaller number of viewers, while the amount of damage of €10.000,00 was determined by free assessment, taking into account the reduced number of views.
Namely, the exclusivity of the transmission allows a legal entity to be the only provider of certain content and attract a larger number of viewers, and in the event that exclusivity is lost, there is a reduction in market position and loss of competitive advantage, which in turn leads to a devaluation of the purchased rights. However, according to the court's finding, the loss of exclusivity, as damage in itself, is ordinary material damage, because the value of the property and rights that the legal entity, and in this case the plaintiff, had, is reduced. Also, a smaller number of viewers as a direct consequence of the loss of exclusivity almost always leads to a decrease in viewership, because the audience has alternative sources of viewing, which causes a decrease in revenue from marketing and advertising, and according to the court's finding, is reflected in lost profits because the revenue would have been generated if the harmful event had not occurred.
The Court finds that in the first part of the judgment, which has become final, it was indisputably established that the plaintiff had the exclusive right to broadcast the event in question, and that the defendant did not request the right to access in accordance with the prescribed rules, which fact he did not dispute, and considering that this is an event of great interest to the public, it concludes that the defendant does not have the right to rebroadcast the entire program, in addition to the rules established by law, and that in doing so the defendant indisputably acted contrary to the provisions of Article 68 of the Law on Electronic Media, as well as Articles 29 and 135 of the Law on Copyright and Related Rights, and violated the plaintiff's copyright by rebroadcasting the program in question.
However, the court finds that the plaintiff, who bears the burden of proof pursuant to Art. 219 of the Civil Procedure Code, has not submitted any evidence that there was a loss of exclusivity and a smaller number of viewers due to the aforementioned violation by the defendant. In addition, the plaintiff was also obliged to prove, if there was, whether the loss of exclusivity directly led to a drop in viewership and whether the drop in viewership caused a specific financial loss. Also, the plaintiff has not proven either the earlier viewership (while the exclusivity existed) or the later drop and the financial effects of that drop, nor has he submitted data on viewership, nor proposed any other evidence or possible expert opinion, so the court finds that the legal obligation is not on the court to propose and determine this itself, but on the plaintiff to prove the allegations on which he bases his claim, and who is represented in the proceedings by an authorized attorney-at-law.
In the above, the court finds that the fact of whether there is an unlawful act on the part of the defendant is irrelevant, because the plaintiff has not proven that he suffered a violation of his personal rights as a result of that act, nor has he proven that he suffered certain consequences to which he refers (loss of exclusivity | smaller number of viewers), and therefore there is no room for the application of the provisions of Article 210a, nor is there any possibility for the court to award fair monetary compensation.
This is all the more so because there is no parameter based on which the court could assess what constitutes fair compensation, because the prosecutor has not submitted or proposed evidence in that regard.
The court also particularly appreciated the plaintiff's allegations that, pursuant to Articles 207 | 209 of the Copyright Act, the defendant committed an unlawful violation of the moral component of copyright because he rebroadcast the New Year's program without authorization, which ultimately resulted in non-pecuniary damage to the plaintiff.
However, the court finds that there is no need to apply Article 207 of the ZOO, which the plaintiff invoked, because the plaintiff did not prove that he suffered non-pecuniary damage in the event of a violation of the personal rights specified in that article of the law, but rather based his damage on the loss of exclusivity | a smaller number of viewers, which represents exclusively material damage, which the plaintiff, despite all this, did not prove.
Based on the above, it was decided as in paragraph I of the operative part of the judgment.
The decision on costs was made pursuant to Articles 150 and 152, paragraph 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, and the court decided that each party shall bear its own costs of the proceedings, since both parties have partially settled the dispute.
COMMERCIAL COURT OF MONTENEGRO
On 06.04.2026. years
Judge
Itana Folić
LEGAL ADVICE: The dissatisfied party has the right to appeal against this verdict within 8 days from the date of receipt thereof, which must be submitted through this court to the Appellate Court of Montenegro, in a sufficient number of copies.
(Radio-Television Nikšić)
Download the app and follow the news
FOLLOW US ON
