Judge of the Basic Court in Podgorica Radovan Vlaovic rejected the claim of Vasilije Durutovic from Niksic. He required Dnevne Novine newspaper and one of its editors Jasmina Muminovic to compensate him with €3,000 for tarnishing his honour and reputation. The court ordered Durutovic to pay €714 to the newspaper and the editor each for the costs of the proceedings.
The Durutovic’s claim refers to the article “Provjerava se vise od 50 osoba” (More than 50 people are being checked) published on 29 October 2015, in which he was said to be a member of the security staff of New Serb Democracy (NOVA). The claim also includes articles “Partijska policija u rukama tuzilastva” (Prosecutor’s office is dealing with party’s police) and “Redari Fronta osudjivani 70 puta” (DF’s security officers convicted 70 times). These articles were published during 2016 and associated Durutovic with the Seventh Battalion.
Muminovic earlier explained before the court that the theme of the party’s security service was of general interest and that the findings were based on unofficial information obtained from investigative authorities. The judge accepted Muminovic’s has invested “reasonable efforts to check facts before they had been published” and that the topic was of general interest.
The court found that the allegations in the article could not be characterised as offensive, since there were no intention to insult the plaintiff.
The court also found that Muminovic was not the author of the article “More than 50 people are being checked” and that the other two articles did not cause any damage for the plaintiff, since he did not deny being a member of the security staff or being associated with the 7th Battalion. In addition, the term “notorious”, which was used in the articles when describing the Seventh Battalion”, was not able to cause emotional pain.
The court also found that the plaintiff was seeing a psychiatrist after the articles were published but that it could not be connected to the articles since he had visited a psychiatrist since 2000.
The court also concluded that there was no room for compensation for tarnishing honour and reputation.
