Meho Mahmutović v. Aladin Paučinac

Aladin Paučinac (Activist)

The case was concluded. Although the plaintiff initially sought 200,000 dinars in damages, the Basic Court in Novi Pazar ruled that Paučinac was to pay 100,000 dinars in compensation and 80,900 dinars in legal costs. However, the second-instance judgment by the Higher Court in Novi Pazar reduced the awarded compensation to 30,000 dinars and legal costs to 71,000 dinars.

1. With the lawsuit that initiated the procedure, the plaintiff uses an imbalance of power, such as his financial advantage, political/social influence or authority as a power holder, in which way he puts pressure on the defendant – an actor participating in the public debate.

The plaintiff is the acting director of the General Hospital in Novi Pazar — a public healthcare institution.

2. The arguments presented by the prosecutor are partially or completely unfounded.

The disputed statements, characterized as insults, were made in the context of citizen protests concerning the poor management of public healthcare during the pandemic, which forms part of a broader social debate. Freedom of expression is guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of the Republic of Serbia, and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights further protects harsh criticism of public officials. A lawsuit filed over the expression of political protest, even in a harsher form, indicates weak grounds.

3. The lawsuit or legal remedy, that is, the request or proposal submitted by the plaintiff is disproportionate, excessive or unreasonable.

The claim for damages in the amount of 200,000 dinars is clearly disproportionate to the action that is the subject of the dispute.

4. Claims represent abuse of rights, i.e. distributive use of authority by public authorities against actors participating in public debate.

The filing of a criminal complaint for insult by a public official in response to a citizen’s political commentary regarding their work in a public institution constitutes an abuse of rights aimed at restricting freedom of expression and intimidating participants in public debate.

5. The lawsuit is filed (also) against an individual, namely the responsible editor of the media outlet and/or journalist, and not (only) against the organization that organized the disputed activity, or the publisher of the media outlet and/or journalist who published the news as part of the public debate.

The lawsuit was filed exclusively against the individual—citizen and activist Aladin Paučinac—as a natural person.

6. The plaintiff, or persons associated with the plaintiff, have previously been or are currently involved in multiple coordinated lawsuits filed against participants in the public debate.

The same plaintiff has filed numerous lawsuits against other local activists and citizens who publicly voiced critical comments about his work.

7. The plaintiff did not initiate out-of-court mechanisms for resolving the disputed matter before filing the lawsuit, or the prosecutor, as a holder of public authority, did not issue a warning or admonishment to the defendant but filed the lawsuit immediately.

There are no indications that the plaintiff attempted to resolve the dispute through out-of-court measures prior to initiating legal proceedings, such as requests for correction, warnings, or any other form of communication with the defendant.

8. On the occasion of the same event in the framework of public debate, several lawsuits were filed against the same defendant on different grounds.

The same plaintiff has filed a series of other lawsuits against the same defendant, also related to the defendant’s comments about him on social media.