Punished for publishing truth

"Karlovacki List", the only newspaper published in the town of Sremski Karlovac – distributed for free in only 1,000 copies – have been fined 250,000 dinars by the Court of Appeals in Novi Sad, to be paid to Sava Pavlovic "for physical (sic!) and emotional pain" caused by a published news. Opposite to what could be deducted from this verdict, Mr. Pavlovic was not beaten by anyone employed by "Karlovacki List": on the contrary, he was the one who had physically assaulted Goran Savic, which resulted in the Police Administration of Novi Sad filing charges against him and the Court of Misdemeanors sentencing him for his actions.

"Karlovacki List" was therefore punished for publishing an officially confirmed truth. Unfortunately, this is not the first, and we are convinced won't be the last, example demonstrating Serbian judiciary's shocking lack of knowledge of media laws and fundamental legal regulations: from the Law on Public Information to the Criminal Code to the Code of Criminal Procedure. This is only the latest example of political bias and certain judges' willingness to punish journalists.

Why are we claiming this? Because our legislation, in its part that is related to the criminal offense of libel, clearly and repeatedly stipulates that journalists are required to carefully check the facts; that journalists cannot be blamed for publishing information whose accuracy was beyond reasonable doubt and which has originated from a source whose credibility and integrity were well-known; that public figures, especially those in positions of power, enjoy a lower level of protection regarding their reputation, privacy etc. as compared to common citizens. All these principles are a part of the practice of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg which is supposed to be integrated in our judicial practice and legal philosophy, so to speak.

Let us analyze the cause of the dispute involving "Karlovacki List". Has Mr. Pavlovic physically attacked Mr Savic? Yes, he has, as was established by the police in its legal charges against him, and later accepted by the Misdemeanors. According to our sources, Mr. Pavlovic was sentenced by court of first instance for violent behavior. Has the news about the unfortunate incident been published by RTV Vojvodina, Radio 021, "Blic" and "Karlovacki List", in a more or less identical form? Yes, it has. Why has Mr. Pavlovic sued only "Karlovacki List"? Because the other media outlets are bigger, able to afford better lawyers and have better connections? We don't know, but have our doubts. Something is wrong here...

What are the peculiar circumstances of this case? For example, the fact that the victim of the attack, Goran Savic, works for the local self-government and is a member of the Democratic Party, while Mr. Pavlovic, who has been sentenced by the court of first instance for the assault, is a former driver of the notorious Zoran Loncar (who belongs to the Democratic Party of Serbia and was a minister in the government of Vojislav Kostunica). Mr. Pavlovic now works as a security guard in the Juznobacki District. So much for the reformed judiciary, in which prosecutorial and judicial positions have been filled without criteria or principles, while taking into account only political quotas, as is obvious from the disputes that have been ongoing for months.

"Karlovacki List" has not been the only innocent victim, although they will suffer more than other media outlets due to their poor financial position. Judicial practice with regard to libels (insults are much less numerous) has demonstrated a discernible patter of behavior: first, legal proceedings for libel against journalists usually end with dismissal of charges, but civil actions related to "emotional pain" (in this case, including the "physical pain" as well) usually end with verdicts against journalists, often regardless of the outcome of the criminal proceedings for the same act. There is a reason for such practice: first, criminal judges are more cautious and analyze the evidence more carefully, the recent practice shows; second criminal proceedings usually lead to less harsh penalties if the guilt is established and a final sentence passed; third, criminal proceedings are subject to the statute of limitations. However, civil actions can take forever to complete and there is no limit to claims for damages filed by claimants (mufti Zukorlic has demanded 100 million euros from "Blic"!), which is a source of immense satisfaction for lawyers. True, higher-instance courts usually do not allow damages exceeding 300.000-400.000 dinars, but these amounts, together with legal costs, is more than enough to financially destroy a small and struggling media outlet – and most of them fit this description.

However, this is not the main issue. The problem lies in the fact that judges do not understand – or refuse to understand – the essence of our media law. Why do they violate law, prosecute journalists and pass scandalous verdict like this one? We don't want to make a guess. But judges should be aware that – with a bit of effort and money – these scandalous verdicts will find their way to the Constitutional Court and, eventually, to Strasbourg, where they will be annulled by courts that adhere to legal principles. I doubt that most of our judges knows or cares for the court in Strasbourg. Even if the Strasbourg court passes a verdict against them, the wrongfully convicted may receive a financial compensation from Serbia (but barely – remember the case of Zeljko Bodozic and the opinion of the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations) but this sum will not be paid by the judges who had passed the wrongful verdict and they couldn't care less. If they were forced to pay the compensation from their own pocket, or if they were punished for damaging the reputation of the Republic of Serbia – which is what this is all about – they would be much more careful.

As the things stand now, notorious gangsters can easily extract damages for "emotional pain" from newspapers, after which they usually end up doing time in prison or escaping to unknown locations outside the country. Today, various characters who used to wave Slobo's picture in the summer of 2000 have won damages because a few years later some newspapers have published a photo of them waving the said picture. Any bully with a criminal history can extort money from the newspaper who have published truth about them.

Milos Vasic

About the authors

MC Newsletter, May 6, 2011