The media win the battle: Kurt's counselor's indictment rejected

Jusuf Ulaj has filed a libel indictment against Paparac, Nacional, and journalists Lirim Mehmetaj and Ilir Mirena.

The indictment included a provisional requirement, demanding that further distribution of statements that he claimed were slanderous and insulting to him be prevented.

In its decision, the court has found that Ulaj's request to ban alleged defamatory and insulting publications did not meet the legal conditions for setting such a move.

According to the court, the plaintiff has failed to prove the existence of immediate danger that would reason immediate intervention through the security measure.

Initially, Yusuf Ulaj, through a status, had seriously offended some journalists, saying they might have mental - health problems. This had sparked reactions from journalists, and because of that, Ulaj has indicted them in court, Paparac writes, broadcasts Periscope.

The indictees' lawyers rejected this request, arguing it constituted a violation of the right to freedom of expression, guaranteed by the Constitution of Kosovo and the European Convention for Human Rights.

Paparac and Vehbi Kajtazit lawyer Agnez Furra argued the plaintiff's claims did not meet the legal criteria for the appointment of a security measure, and that such a decision would create a dangerous precedent for press freedom in Kosovo.

Tutje Furra has added that Yusuf Ulaj has made false and groundless audits, seriously violating the reputation of journalist Vehbi Kajazi and his colleagues, and this contrary to the standards of medical ethics.

“The plaintiff Yusuf Ulaj has distributed groundless claims on the journalist's state of mind, without any scientific evidence, what in this case the plaintiff's actions in itself contain slander and violation of the rights of journalism, violating the reputation of journalist VehbiKajazi”, the lawyer has said.

Meanwhile, Nacional and Berat Buzhala's legal representative, Bland Bekteshi, stated that the demand for mass security was indefinite and did not contain any concrete expressions that should be banned, stressing that such a move would be illegal. According to him, Ulaj's indictment aimed at the effect of “self-sensor” on journalists.

After holding the hearing on 14 March 2025 and reviewing the evidence, the Constitutional Court in Pristina concluded that Ulaj's request did not meet legal conditions for the appointment of a security measure.

The “Court, after carefully considering the proposal for the security measure, response to the proposal indictees- counterpossessors who have submitted answers, as well as the statements at the session and following the analysis of material evidence that is in the subject's paperwork, has come to the conclusion that the proposal of the proposor for the provision of the insurance measure, at this stage of procedure, is unequivocated, because no evidence has argued with any risk of implementing its right, in demand, in the name of non-inflicitable damage to the non-descriptional, the act is said.

In her decision, the court stressed that to establish security measures, the proposor must meet the condition of the reliability of the demand and the condition of the risk of inadequacy or difficulty in implementing demand that must be met in a quantum way to set a security measure.

“Gjykata estimates that the prosecutor ] the security measure proposal has failed to prove that these two key conditions have been met in a quantifiably met for the safety measure's appointment: the credibility of demand or subject rights, as well as the risk that, without the appointment of a security measure, the plaintiffs 're going to be difficult or unable to realising the request and implementation of the request in the name of non-matial damage, if the fact is proven that the statements indicted by the opponents of the constitutional security have been defacident.

So in this sense, the court has not been issued to assess the authenticity of the contents of published statements, as this issue will be addressed in other phases of the procedure regarding the prosecution. If we take the requirement for compensation in the name of libel, the facts that must be confirmed in this case will be considered during the merititative deployment. Therefore, refusing to submit a security measure proposal at this phase of the procedure does not elaborate and question the issue of establishing the right subjectives, if the plaintiff's claims for measures of security are proved, it further says.