ANSWER TO MUNICIPAL COURT

Avaz's lawyers demanded the immediate lifting of the ban on writing about Ranko Debevec

In the decision itself, the judge did not explain the reasons for the urgency at all, as well as the probability that the articles damaged the reputation of Ranko Debevec

Debevec: Demanded ban on "Avaz" writing. Avaz

M. Aščić

Lawyers of "Dnevni avaz" Almina Pilav and Selma Kafedžić yesterday submitted to the Municipal Court in Sarajevo, the answer of "Avaz" to the temporary security measure imposed by judge Pavle Crnogorac.

By the decision on imposing a temporary measure, "Dnevni Avaz" was forbidden to write about the private life of the President of the Court of B&H, Ranko Debevec.

The lawyer's response stated that "Dnevni avaz" did not write about the private life of the President of the Court of B&H, but about the fact that he abused his high judicial position for private purposes.

Among other things, the response stated that judge Crnogorac did not refer to the FB&H Law on Protection against Defamation in the decision on imposing a temporary measure, which, as a lex specialis, had to be applied in a specific procedure, given that Ranko Debevec filed a defamation and insults in the media lawsuit and that with the proposal for the adoption of a temporary security measure, together with the security measure, he requested that "Dnevni avaz" as a media should be banned from disclosing information to the public. Furthermore, the lawyers referred to the FB&H Law on Protection against Defamation (LPD), which stipulates in Article 10, paragraph 2, that a court measure prohibiting or restricting the presentation or disclosure of a false facts is not allowed before the publication of that statement.

- In Article 10, paragraph 3 of the LPD, a court measure of prohibition is defined as a temporary or permanent court measure prohibiting the transmission or further transmission of the expression of a false facts. As the provision of paragraph 2 of Article 10 defines that a court measure prohibiting or restricting the presentation or dissemination of untrue expressions is not allowed before the publication of that expression, opponents of the proponents consider that such a Proposal for the adoption of a temporary security measure, together with the security measure is inadmissible, in accordance with the cited provisions of the Law on Protection against Defamation.Especially because the court issued a temporary measure prohibiting the future disclosure of information that has not yet been published and for which it cannot know in advance what the contents will be, because only in court proceedings should the "untruthfulness of facts" be established - said lawyer's Pilav and Kafedžić.

Also, lawyers claim that judge Crnogorac did not prove the urgency of the measure (a lawsuit with a motion to impose a measure was filed on Thursday, January 28th, and the decision was made on Monday, February 1st). In the decision itself, the judge did not explain the reasons for urgency, as nor the likelihood that the articles damaged Ranko Debevec's reputation.

According to the proposal for the adoption of a temporary measure, which was accepted by gudge Crnogorac, that the journalists' writing about the abuse of office by Ranko Debevec was an attack on the entire judiciary and that journalists criticized his actions and insulted and violated the dignity of the judiciary as a whole, Avaz's lawyers assessed it as complete nonsense, stating that they have nothing to do with reality. In this way, the journalists of "Dnevni avaz" right to freedom of expression, guaranteed by the Constitution of B&H, the Constitution of FB&H and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms has been violated.

In their response, they stated that the Decision on the temporary measure which was inforced on 1st of February 2021. is illegal and asked the court to cancel it immediately.