The Basic Court in Podgorica issued a first-instance verdict last week, which found the MP Maja Vučelić ordered the leader of the Democratic People's Party (DNP) Milan Knežević pay 2.000 euros for violation of honor and reputation - to which Vučelić announced an appeal, saying that the decision was a consequence of the court not liking her political stance, and that it opens the door to censorship, pressure and silencing.
Knežević sued Vučelić over allegations she made at the end of March last year, when she said she was calling on the National Security Agency (ANB) to urgently investigate allegations of connections between certain politicians in Montenegro and the Serbian security service, especially in the context of statements by the former head of the Security and Information Agency (BIA). Alexander Vulin, and given the increasing interference in the internal affairs of Montenegro.
Vučelić also said on that occasion that the ideas advocated by Knežević, together with the president of the Serbian Radical Party, Vojislav Šešelj, a continuation of the same policy that devastated the Balkans in the 1990s, and which is being paid for by the citizens of Serbia. She said that Knežević's attempt to destabilize Montenegro's European path is still obvious, "all in the name of political interests that are taking us, the citizens of Montenegro, backwards."
"... A classic tactic of diverting attention and defamation when arguments run out. And most likely an expression of fear due to the imminent drying up of the generous influx of dirty money with which various Mandics, Velimirovics and other Radojicic people finance the campaigns of your political entity," Vučelić stated at the time.
She made these claims in a statement, which was reported by the media, in response to statements by the spokesperson for Knežević's DNP. Jovan Todorovic.
Knežević, as stated in the reasoning of the verdict, said that the article had a negative impact on him and his family, adding that he was ready to accept the political qualifications “that Serbia is closer to him than Montenegro” and that he was “a puppet of certain politicians from Serbia”, but not the allegations that his party was financed by dirty money. He pointed out that he “felt very negatively, anxiously” about the article, and that he did not contact health institutions about the article, but that, given the reaction of his family and close friends, all of this had made him “feel negative”.
Vučelić told "Vijesti" that the verdict is important because, according to her, it shows that in Montenegro anyone can be punished - not for insulting someone privately, but for publicly expressing a political position that a politician did not like.
"I didn't talk about my private life, but they did talk about mine. I talked about what politicians in a democratic society have to talk about: foreign political influence, narratives coming from Belgrade, the dangerous misuse of identity issues, so-called military alliances against the Orthodox, the story of colored revolutions and the need for the competent authorities to check whether there are political-security connections that could jeopardize the sovereignty and European path of Montenegro," said the former member of CIVIS.
Vučelić stated that what is even more dangerous is that the court, without evidence of Knežević's compromised safety and psychological consequences, accepted his story.
"Without reporting to the police, without any assessment of the threat posed by my political stance, without going to the doctor and without medical documentation, the court is ruling and taking away my freedom of speech. Just because they didn't like my political stance. If that's enough, then tomorrow anyone who feels called out can sue anyone and seek compensation. This is no longer protecting their reputation, it's opening the door for the courts to be used again for censorship, pressure and silencing," she underlined.
Knežević asked for five thousand euros
In the explanation of the decision, signed by the judge Ivana Žujović, writes that the court concluded that the essence of the disputed text refers to Knežević's political activities, and that it can be undoubtedly concluded that Vučelić addressed Knežević throughout the entire text, as well as that she stated that his party's campaigns were financed from the influx of dirty money, which means that the financing of the party's campaigns from possible dirty money could not have happened without Knežević's knowledge.
"The prosecutor (Knežević) found such allegations offensive and had a negative impact on him... since he experienced the allegations as being imputed to him as being in the zone of a criminal offense. It is true that the prosecutor is a politician, and as such he should have a higher degree of tolerance for criticism...", the verdict states.
However, the explanation states that the "spirit and meaning" of the disputed text is not just a criticism of political action, nor is it just a launch of a public debate, but "it is certainly also an emphasis on the cooperation of the DNP and its president with political structures outside the state's borders, with allegations that his party's campaigns are financed by the influx of dirty money."
The court concluded that in this particular case, it was not a matter of value judgments, but rather of discrediting Knežević, "which undoubtedly called into question his personal and professional credibility, which certainly fall under the category of honor and reputation."
"The defendant's allegations that the party of which the plaintiff is the president is financed by the inflow of dirty money are every allusion to the existence of suspicion that the plaintiff is engaged in illegal activities...", it added.
It was further stated that there is no final judgment regarding Vučelić's claims, nor are there any criminal proceedings against Knežević, and that "these are certainly allegations that cannot be value judgments or criticism of the work of political actors", but rather blanket allegations, which, as the reasoning for the verdict states - "would cause at least some discomfort in a common man, first of all in a moral sense, which includes honor and reputation, and which would certainly further manifest itself in the form of physical discomfort, anxiety, as is the case with the prosecutor, as follows from his statement, which the court accepted in its entirety as clear and unambiguous".
"Therefore, since the disputed publications contain compromising allegations against the plaintiff, which harm his personal and private integrity, the defendant caused him non-pecuniary damage, which is reflected in the violation of honor and reputation," it is underlined.
The Basic Court pointed out that Vučelić, like everyone else, has the right to freedom of speech and expression, but that this does not mean that it is possible to cross the line of what is permissible and threaten and violate the rights of others, which are also guaranteed by both domestic and international acts.
"The limits of what is permissible are certainly opinions and value judgments, and what is not the point in this case, since the claims that the campaigns of a political entity, of which the plaintiff is the president, are financed by the inflow of dirty money, cannot in any way be subsumed under the above, but it is evident that these allegations, which are factually and legally unfounded, represent the defendant's clear intention to question the plaintiff's reputation in society, as well as in the political world," the explanation reads.
The court rejected Knežević's claim for another 3.000 euros in damages.
"... Starting from the purpose of the institute of compensation for non-pecuniary damage, which is reflected in satisfaction, not compensation, but also the fact that awarding a larger amount of compensation would lead to the commercialization of this institute, which is certainly not its purpose or goal," it states.
Vučelić: Freedom of speech has been reduced to an insult
Vučelić told "Vijesti" that the topic is not personal, but political, and that her political stance is controversial.
"It is controversial that I said that playing with identity issues is undermining European Montenegro. It is controversial that I said that Montenegro must be a sovereign state, and not let others create divisions for us, install their services, their agendas and their political calculations. It is controversial that I asked for institutions to do their job," she said.
She claims that she was punished for speaking out about foreign influence and political responsibility, and that tomorrow it could be a journalist asking where the money comes from, and the day after tomorrow an activist talking about political connections, abuse of power, or security contacts.
She said that if the courts start judging and censoring again, the public space in Montenegro will not be better because everyone is good, but because no one will be allowed to speak anymore.
"It is particularly dangerous that in this way freedom of speech is reduced to an insult. If you criticize a political party, its narrative, its actions and political connections, and the court translates that into a personal insult to its leader, then the line between political struggle and the deprivation of freedom of speech is blurred. Then every leader can say that it was not his politics that was criticized, but his honor. That is not democracy, that is the return of censorship to judicial practice," she assessed.
Vučelić therefore asks: "If the former regime had dragged oppositionists through the courts like this because they spoke about corruption, about crime, about political support for organized crime, about the influence of power centers - what would have been the reaction of the oppositionists at the time?"
"Would they remain silent? Would they say it was democratic? Of course not. They would say it was a denial of freedom of speech, an abuse of the system, a disciplining of political opponents, and they would be right," she pointed out.
She stated that freedom of speech does not exist to say only what politicians would like to hear, but that it exists precisely to speak out loudly about those who have power, function, and influence.
"If, as of this verdict, we are no longer allowed to speak openly about foreign influences, identity manipulations, party power networks and political-security connections, then there will be no one left to speak on behalf of the citizens of Montenegro," Vučelić concluded.
See more:
Download the app and follow the news
FOLLOW US ON
