MANS submitted its response to the the appeal of the Lottery and Jackpot against judgment dismissing the claim against those entities against MANS and Daily Press. In addition to the fact that the Lottery and Jackpot in appeal continued with arbitrarily and ungrounded accusations, now they contributed and to the legal interpretations that the theory and practice do not know.
Specifically, in the complaint of the Lottery and Jackpot it is stated that Montenegro because of decriminalization of defamation “reserved” the rights of legal entities with a provision in the Law on Obligations, which provides compensation for non-material damage. Defamation is decriminalized in 2011 and the Law on Obligations with the specific provision was adopted in 2008. So the conclusion of the Lottery and Jackpot that one decriminalization consequence of defamation occurred three years ago does not deserve a special comment, but it clearly shows continuity of the “merit” and ‘expertise” of allegations of Lottery and Jackpot.
Also, the appeal of the Lottery and Jackpot again points to the writings of other case in which their judge Blazo Jovanic awarded over 2 million euros from the budget, even though those writings have nothing to do with MANS, and also those writings only show that the Lottery and Jackpot illegally elected judge Jovanic to be the judge in this case.
Furthermore, the Lottery and Jackpot in the complaint express their regret that Montenegro decriminalized defamation, they list countries that have not done that, lists sanctions that can be imposed for defamation in other counties, list types and theoretical definition of defamation, they speak about problems of transition times and transition countries, journalistic ethics, honesty, situation in legally regulated countries, etc.
It is the right of the Lottery and Jackpot to advocate for verbal attacks, but their regret that Montenegro decriminalized defamation can not be a reason to meet their requirements. Also, the Lottery and Jackpot, actually controversial businessmen who control them, very well know that the problems of transitional times and transitional countries are not in decriminalization of defamation, but rather in the controversial businessmen and their connections with corrupted individuals in the Government.
Before speaking about legally regulated countries the Lottery and Jackpot should consider whether they and their founders in such countries could “do business” in the way they do in Montenegro? Could the Lottery “be sold” in the way that was done in Montenegro? Would they be in a position to secure their monopoly in the legally regulated countries as it is done in Montenegro? Would it be possible in such countries to elect the judge by their claim in the manner as it was done in Montenegro? The answer on this and many other questions the best shows the merits of their claim, or the right of MANS to deal with their business and its manner, as it was done until now and as it will be done in the future.
In the absence of arguments in the appeal, the Lottery and Jackpot again indicates the vulnerability of Branislav Micunovic and Sava Dzigi Grbovic against MANS, but now charges are extended to allegations of their criminal connection with Milo Djukanovic. In the first instance the Lottery and Jackpot escaped hearing of Micunovic claiming that he was incompetent to testify because his health would be in danger if he testifies before the court, while Sava Dzigi Grbovic used a legal right that as a representative of the party to be excluded from testifying. Accusations that the MANS attacked the founders of the Lottery and Jackpot because of the criminal relationship with Milo Djukanovic for the first time was presented in the complaint, and MANS did not have the opportunity to discuss it before the court, which would gladly do.
Finally, we again pointed to the court on the position of the European Court of Human Rights that the Lottery and Jackpot avoid to comment, except that their counsel at trial called them as ” phrases of European new-speech”. The attitude of the court in Strasbourg is that the business reputation is not legitimate objective for which the freedom of expression should be limited. This attitude applies even in the case of the companies that can demonstrate that they have such a reputation, and whose founders are not in the European indictment list for organized crime. For this reason that attitude must apply to the Lottery and Jackpot. Therefore, we expect the High Court to implement the views of the European Court, and not the views of the Lottery and jackpot and individuals who represent them.
MANS attorney:
Veselin Radulovic, a lawyer
