In the name of the people - "Vreme", editor-in-chief Filip Švarm and journalist Nemanja Rujević - will jointly pay Jelena Trivan 80.000 dinars due to injury to honor and reputation. The Court of Appeal ruled that "Vreme" should publish the verdict of the High Court, which was done in the last issue of our newspaper. The compensation claim of one million dinars was rejected, and the text "Anatomy of a dissertation", which is also the subject of the dispute, will remain on the "Vremena" portal.
Why are we actually condemned?
Five years ago, "Vreme" published an article about the plaintiff's doctoral dissertation. It says that in this paper - all without a sign of citation, citation or mention of those sources in the list of references - excerpts from other people's articles, books and so on are represented.
However, according to the final verdict, we should not have done this. Why? Because the Court clearly said in the judgment that the text of colleague Rujević is "an analysis of the plaintiff's doctoral dissertation by a person who does not have the professional knowledge for it". And he added that neither in this, nor in any other case, "a conclusion can be reached without the opinion of an expert". Otherwise, the Court did not dispute that large parts of the work were taken from other sources without citing.
The testimony of colleague Rujević at one of the hearings that basic literacy is required to notice the identity of the text in two paragraphs, as well as that it is easy to determine which of the two works is older, did not convince the Court. He only trusts experts.
Why didn't "Vreme" look for them then? Yes, dear reader, but at the time of writing "Anatomy of a dissertation", the Faculty of Philology - contrary to the rules of the University - did not have an Ethics Committee to which suspected plagiarism could be reported. It was formed only later.
Thus, a group of professors, such as Oliver Tošković from the Faculty of Philosophy, could only submit an application to the Ethics Commission in 2022 regarding the controversial dissertation, and the formation of the Expert Commission that was supposed to evaluate it began.
But - don't lie down the devil. The Faculty appointed two members of the Expert Commission, one from the University, while the fourth was to come from the National Council for Higher Education. He had been waiting for almost two years. Finally, the National Council appointed its member of the Expert Commission - Dr. Borivoj Baltazarević - but he soon withdrew from this body due to health reasons.
The three remaining professors - what he was talking about wrote the president of the Expert Commission, Boban Arsenijević from the University of Graz - still produced a draft report declaring the disputed dissertation to be plagiarized. However, without Baltazarević's signature, that report is not valid. Now it is up to the Faculty of Philology to form an Expert Committee from scratch, whose members have already been determined by the Council for Higher Education. Whether and how the new commission will complete its work is difficult to assess.
Therefore, there were "experts" that the Court insists on. They gave their opinion a long time ago. It just turns out that its officialization in the form of a decision of the Expert Commission can be postponed indefinitely. In addition, those experts' opinions, as well as the vicissitudes with the commission, were known to the Appellate Court, but it did not take them into account, or even state them.
Now it turns out that the lesson from this judgment to "Vremen" is that journalists must not write about topics of public interest unless they have an official document to confirm the obvious. And if the chances of such a paper ever being received are slim - then it is best that these cases are never reported.
Since we are aware of the danger to the public interest and media freedom contained in this judgment, "Vreme" will request its revision from the Supreme Court of Cassation.
