The basic court in Podgorica partially accepted the lawsuit filed by the former president and leader of the Democratic Party of Socialists (DPS). Milo Đukanović against the president of the Atlas Group, a businessman Duško Knežević and Daily Press, publisher of the independent daily "Vijesti".
According to the first-instance verdict, Knežević and "Vijesti" are obliged to jointly and severally pay Đukanović 1.500 euros with statutory default interest starting on April 12, 2019, based on compensation for non-material damages due to the violation of personal rights - the right to honor and reputation.
Daily Press lawyer Aleksandar Djurišić filed an appeal against the decision of the Basic Court, judging that the verdict was "illegal, unfounded, superficial and deeply unfounded".
Đukanović sued Knežević and the Daily Press over the text "Đukanović, me and a bag of money" in which the businessman accused of creating a criminal organization made claims that he had given the then president of the country money.
On Tuesday, Knežević was extradited to Montenegro from Great Britain for the purpose of conducting several criminal proceedings, and by decision of the High Court he was ordered to be detained due to the risk of flight.
The basic court, among other things, states in the verdict that Knežević pointed out in the interview in the initial phase that "there is a video of Đukanović in my house, where you can see that I give him money in a sports bag, which he takes, and the conversation that took place on that occasion ...".
"However, for the positions and claims presented in this way, the defendant neither in that text nor later submitted clear and concrete evidence in the direction of confirming his allegations," the verdict reads.
The court also stated that for the decision in this dispute, in which there is a conflict between personal rights and freedom of expression, which also includes freedom of media information, it had in mind the valid regulations on these rights and freedoms and the practice of the European Court of Human Rights and domestic courts.
It is stated that the text does not indicate that the author was not presented with the video mentioned by Knežević, so there is no indication that it is a matter of rumors or assumptions, which means that it was not handled professionally, in accordance with the Code of Journalists.
"In addition, the defendant of the first order in this proceeding did not prove that the allegations were true, while on the other hand, the defendant of the second order did not act in good faith with respect for the dignity of the plaintiff and with the professional care expected of him, i.e. he did not make an effort to determine the truth of the facts in the disputed texts by applying the principle that the other side should be heard, which should have been done in terms of the cited provisions, considering that the text contains factual statements that are very offensive to the plaintiff and whose truth is not supported by valid evidence," it is written in judge.
Judge Mladen Bulatović believes that this leads to the conclusion that the unproven factual claims are not well-intentioned and that the disputed text was published in a manner and with the intention of creating a negative impression of Đukanović in the public and discrediting his personality, and that the balance between protected goods was grossly violated by the abuse of freedom of expression - freedom of expression on the one hand and personal rights of the plaintiff on the other, to the detriment of the plaintiff.
"The fact that the plaintiff is a public figure and that he must accept harsh criticism and provocative statements about himself in a public debate does not release the defendant from responsibility, because the rights to psychological integrity and human dignity are natural rights that are acquired by birth and inviolably belong to the plaintiff, while the rights to honor and reputation are fundamental rights that relate to moral categories, that is, to honor as a feeling of one's own value and respectability in society and reputation as an opinion that the environment and public opinion have about a person," the first-instance verdict states.
Đukanović demanded in the lawsuit that Knežević and the Daily Press jointly pay 50.000 euros for non-material damages due to the violation of the right to honor and reputation, but the judge considered that the claim was too high.
"...Given that the plaintiff did not submit other evidence in order to determine the requested compensation, because he was not heard as a litigant, nor were there any proposals by the plaintiff in that direction, so that the court would be convinced of the degree and intensity of the violation of the mental integrity of the plaintiff , nor could the court by direct observation quantitatively express the depth of the violation of personal rights and gain a broader picture in terms of the circumstances in which the plaintiff's honor and reputation were violated, so it found that the adequate monetary compensation, as satisfaction for the violation of the plaintiff's honor, amounts to 1.500 euros , and also an additional 1.500 compensation for damage to reputation...", the verdict reads.
Attorney Đurišić, who, as he stated, provides legal assistance to the Daily Press on a pro-bono basis, without any material interest, in accordance with the Constitution and the Law, assessed that the decision of the Basic Court was expected.
"... Because the prosecutor was not even heard about the circumstances of mental pain and suffering, like all other prosecutors in our country in every such procedure. The court believed that suffering existed even though he did not prove it. Such a privileged relationship is unclear in a simple lawsuit. With on the other hand, bearing in mind the disturbed value system in our country, it is natural that such decisions are made. Namely, some people do not even understand the difference between good and evil. Not even some public authorities, that is, the concept of protecting people rights protect those who do not have power - private persons", believes Đurišić.
He also assessed that, when public authorities are mentioned, they should suffer more, everything and that it is about shocking information, with the due attention of journalists, which has been proven.
Bonus video:
