The Government of Montenegro is required to pay 2,100 euros to Aleksandar Čako Ivanović, a prominent figure among Buducnost fans, following a brutal police assault during the 2019 football derby between Sutjeska and Buducnost in Nikšić.

This ruling comes from the Basic Court in Podgorica, which partially upheld Ivanović’s lawsuit against the Ministry of Internal Affairs.

However, the court determined that Ivanović holds 30 percent of the blame for the severe injuries he incurred, citing a previous conviction for assaulting two police officers after the match as a contributing factor.

His lawyer, Srđan Lješković, has filed an appeal against the court’s decision, arguing that the court erred by denying an additional claim for 1,900 euros.

On April 3, 2019, Ivanović sustained significant injuries, and medical experts in the subsequent trial confirmed that these injuries were grave, notably warning that damage to the central parietal area of the head could lead to life-threatening complications or infections due to its rich blood supply.

“To this day, the prosecution has not sought to identify those responsible for Ivanović’s serious injuries. Instead, they assert that he instigated the incident,” Lješković remarked to Vijesti. He emphasized that “at the time of the incident, the police in Montenegro were heavily shielded.”

During the legal proceedings against the Ministry of Internal Affairs at the Podgorica court, it was established that police officers inflicted both physical and psychological harm upon Ivanović while violating his rights to dignity, honor, and reputation.

As a result, he was awarded compensation for non-pecuniary damages—840 euros for physical integrity violations, 420 euros for psychological integrity violations, and 840 euros for breaches of honor, reputation, and dignity, as stated in Lješković’s appeal following the June 9 decision.

In response to the verdict, Lješković expressed to Vijesti that the Ministry of Interior acknowledged Ivanović sustained severe, life-threatening injuries, a fact confirmed by medical expert Dr. Miodrag Šoć.

“Legal precedents are inconsistent, and until they become uniform, we will continue to see stagnation in court proceedings and verdicts like the one issued for the leader of the Barbarian fans,” the attorney asserted.

Appeal

The filed appeal outlines substantial violations of civil procedure in the initial verdict, incorrect ascertainment of the facts, and misapplication of law. It argues that the court’s judgment lacks clarity regarding the plaintiff’s rights violations, especially given the absence of an explanation for the criteria used to determine the damage compensation related to physical integrity violations.

“On page 20 of the disputed judgment, the court notes that the police officers’ actions violated the plaintiff’s physical and psychological integrity, as confirmed by medical experts. However, it fails to articulate how the plaintiff contributed to the harmful outcomes, stating that his contribution was 30 percent,” the appeal details.

“It hurts less when he is convicted”

Lješković further contends that the judgment implies the percentage of Ivanović’s contribution to the incident is based on his criminal conviction, which is irrelevant to this case:

“The plaintiff did not inflict injuries upon the officers; rather, it was the officers who harmed him. Notably, as indicated on page 18 of the contested ruling, video footage reveals that the plaintiff emerged in front of the police bus, clutching his head, only to be surrounded by about ten officers who then employed batons and physical force, continuing even after he was knocked down and posed no resistance.’ Therefore, despite ample evidence illustrating that ten officers used excessive force against the plaintiff, it remains unclear how he contributed to the harmful consequences. The plaintiff argues that he could not have contributed in any way. Furthermore, the plaintiff maintains that the incident involving his alleged noncompliance with police orders was addressed in a prior criminal proceeding and that “the defendant’s officers exploited this incident to ‘punish’ the plaintiff after pursuing charges against him,” the complaint concludes.

News