Case Summary and Outcome

The Basic Civil Court Skopje in the Republic of North Macedonia issued a judgment granting Kocho Angjushev’s defamation claim against the defendants Saska Cvetkovska and the non-profit organization Investigative Reporting Lab – Macedonia (IRL). In its decision, the Court determined that part of the documentary Conspiracy Against the Air produced by IRL, which aired on 16 May 2021, was defamatory. The Court reasoned that the defendants made insufficient efforts to contact the plaintiff (former Vice Prime Minister for Economy) regarding the allegations presented in the documentary about possible acts of corruption. It also held that they could not seek protection under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights as journalists, given that the Investigative Reporting Lab was registered as a civil society association and Saska Cvetkovska served as its editor-in-chief. The Court ordered the defendants to pay the plaintiff non-material damages for 60 denars (1 euro) and to publish the judgment in the daily newspaper Sloboden Pecat within 15 days after the decision was issued.

Facts

Saska Cvetkovska is the editor-in-chief and co-founder of the Investigative Reporting Lab – Macedonia (IRL), a civil society organization “whose reporting focuses on corruption, crime and good governance”.  Cvetkovska, together with other journalists employed by IRL and the the “Redakcija” project, conducted a two-year journalistic investigation into how toxic fuel oil, and other harmful fuels, were being imported to Macedonia and sold for use by public institutions. On May 16, 2021, they aired a documentary titled Conspiracy Against the Air on the national television service MTV 1. The documentary focused on the import of fuel oil by the company Evrotim GDS DOOEL Kichevo, which, allegedly, did not meet quality standards and was harmful to human health and the environment.

In the documentary, it was alleged that Kocho Angjushev—one of Macedonia’s biggest businessmen and former Vice Prime Minister for Economy at the time of the events—played a key role—as an official and through his industrial connections—in the importation of highly polluting fuels used in public institutions across North Macedonia.

After the documentary aired, Angjushev filed a civil defamation lawsuit before the Basic Civil Court Skopje against Cvetkovska and the IRL. The lawsuit claimed that the documentary violated Article 8 of the Law on Civil Liability for Defamation and Insult. The lawsuit also raised concerns about communications between the plaintiff and the defendants, arguing that the latter did not fulfill their journalistic duty to contact Angjushev for comment. The plaintiff did not claim that he had not been contacted, but argued that the defendants did not make a serious effort to obtain a response or a reaction from him. To support this argument, the plaintiff submitted a record of incoming calls from his mobile operator. The defendants countered this claim by asserting that their attempts to communicate with Angjushev were also made through WhatsApp. Additionally, evidence was presented in court during hearings. According to the plaintiff, it was indisputable that the defendants made attempts to communicate with him, but not sufficiently.

On March 7, 2022, the Basic Civil Court Skopje issued a judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s claim in its entirety. In its reasoning, the court stated that the fact that inaccurate details were presented in the documentary (such as the time of the day when some meetings took place) was irrelevant, as their significance was secondary when considering that the factual truth did not materially change the overall meaning of the documentary’s allegations. Moreover, the court considered that the documentary was the result of long-term investigative journalism on the pressing issue of air pollution and environmental protection, which was of high public interest.

Following Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the court ruled that press freedom could not be restricted, nor could the state interfere by imposing repressive measures that would limit not only freedom of expression but also the public’s right to be informed about important societal issues. Finally, the first instance court said that “[t]he statements made in the documentary by the defendants undoubtedly caused distress to the plaintiff, and he perceived the documentary as an attack on his personal integrity, honor, and reputation. However, it must be taken into account that this occurred during a period when he held a high political office—as Deputy Prime Minister of the Republic of North Macedonia. As such, he must endure a higher degree of serious criticism, since by being in the public eye while performing his political function, he must be aware that he will be subjected to intense scrutiny, even if there is some exaggeration in journalistic reporting.”

The plaintiff appealed this judgment. On April 7, 2023, the Court of Appeals Skopje annulled the judgment of the Basic Civil Court Skopje and remanded the case for retrial. The Court of Appeals argued that the first instance court had committed an error by failing to conduct a more critical analysis of the evidence presented during the proceedings, and failed to determine whether the plaintiff held public office at the time of the documentary’s broadcast.

Decision Overview

On October 24, 2023, the Basic Civil Court of Skopje issued a ruling on the matter. The main issue the Court had to assess was whether the defendants could be considered journalists and a media outlet according to the domestic legislation.

For this purpose, the Court began by noting that the IRL was registered in the Central Register of the Republic of North Macedonia as a citizens’ association. Defendant Cvetkovska, the Court opined, was only registered as the president of the association. Therefore, the Court concluded that neither the IRL could be considered a media outlet nor Cvetkovska a journalist under the law. Thus, it argued that the defendants could only show the documentary to their members—not broadcast it on the national television channel “MTV 1.”

For these reasons, the Court said that the defendants’ claims that they performed their work as journalists—and that in a democratic society, the right to report cannot be limited when performing journalistic work—were unfounded. As mentioned above, the Court underscored that citizens’ associations were not journalistic organizations. As such, its members, regardless of their profession, cannot be treated as journalists, nor can their work in the association be considered part of their journalistic profession. Hence, the Court rejected the defendants’ claims that, in this case, under Article 10 of the Law on Civil Liability for Defamation and Insult, there were grounds for excluding their responsibility.

Regarding the communications between the plaintiff and the defendants, the Court concluded: “From the provided phone log of the plaintiff, Kocho Angjushev, it was confirmed only that he received an SMS from the first defendant and called her on 01.02.2019. However, from then until the publication of the broadcast, neither from his phone log nor from the defendants’ phone logs did the court find any communication between them, which indicates that the plaintiff was unaware that the defendants would publish such a broadcast in a public information medium, nor did he know the content of the broadcast, nor was he aware of the facts harmful to his reputation that would be published.” [p. 9]

In light of the above, the Court held that the defendants were liable for defamation. It ordered them to pay the plaintiff non-material damages for 60 denars (1 euro) and to publish the judgment in the daily newspaper Sloboden Pecat within 15 days after the decision was issued.

On 24 November 2023, the defendants filed an appeal against this ruling before the Court of Appeals Skopje.