Home / Comments and Opinions / She lost, but she can seek justice if she sues now

She lost, but she can seek justice if she sues now

At the end of March, I wrote about the case of Ljerka Štefanec from Karlovac, who only learned after the enforcement on her account, as she claimed, that the Municipal Court in Karlovac had penalized her for disturbing the employees of the Fitopromet store located in her immediate vicinity. Now she has contacted me again because she has obtained the file from the Karlovac court in which, she emphasizes, there are contradictions in the statements of the employees and other individuals.

First of all, I warmly advise the esteemed Ms. Štefanec to consult with a lawyer who specializes in misdemeanor law; he will best know how to inform her about the chances of reopening the case. But let me remind you, she subsequently learned, thanks to data from Fina about the enforcement, that a court procedure had been held and completed against her and that she was fined for disturbing public order and peace.

The misdemeanor order with the penalty was allegedly delivered to Štefanec for her response, but she did not receive it, so Judge Ljiljana Skale decided to notify her via the court’s bulletin board, which is in accordance with the law. Namely, Štefanec had a problem with the company Fitopromet, which has a store right next to her house, and due to the alleged noise, as she claims, one day she could no longer tolerate it and loudly addressed the employees. The employees were allegedly frightened, which is why the police were called (the owner of the property where the store is located is a police officer), a report was drawn up, and a misdemeanor order was issued.

If only it could be done

Štefanec, as I mentioned, obtained the case file which she forwarded to me. It contains statements from two employees and the owner of the house who rented the space to Fitopromet, Davor Božičević, who is also a police officer in Karlovac. The misdemeanor order states that Štefanec on October 23, 2020, ‘disturbed public order and peace by yelling and shouting at the employees of the Fitopromet store with the words: ‘What are you doing, stop harassing me, are you crazy, people are you normal, do not yell and shout under my window, will you stop making noise!’, thereby causing fear and disturbance to the employees and neighbors.’ For disturbing public order and peace, she was fined 387.32 kuna, along with additional court costs, enforcement, and Fina’s services.

In the statement provided to me by Fitopromet employee Lovorka Plavetić Kranjčec, it is written that Štefanec attacked her and her colleague Sanja Tonković with the words ‘will you stop making noise, stop harassing me’ and that the two of them went to another part of the yard. Sanja Tonković stated that Štefanec began shouting and yelling ‘what are we doing, that we are harassing her, and that she cannot rest in peace, and she withdrew with her colleague into the store.’ The owner of the house, Božičević, who was in the house, heard that Štefanec was yelling and shouting that the employees were making noise, but he did not exactly remember her words, except for the following: ‘Are you crazy?’, which disturbed him as a citizen. However, those words were not heard by the two employees, even though she addressed them directly. In any case, although I generally do not take sides in such cases, I have a feeling that it would be good to re-examine the entire case, if only it could be done.

I am still a layman

Namely, Štefanec is asking me what to do because she has now obtained the statements from the file in that case in which it is evident that the two employees do not testify to what the owner of the house says. Although I told her over the phone, and I repeat it now, it is best for her to find a lawyer; I fear that there will be nothing from reopening the case. Because for it to be initiated, something new would have to arise. In this case, the witness statements are nothing new, even if they are contradictory, and I think that such a story is over. But let Ms. Štefanec consult a lawyer.

POST SCRIPTUM

Štefanec is asking me whether the Law on Ownership and Other Real Rights is stronger than the Law on Misdemeanors Against Public Order and Peace, or vice versa. The Law on Ownership (Article 110, paragraph 4) states: ‘The owner of the property is not obliged to endure that anyone disturbs him without a special legal basis by directly emitting smoke, unpleasant odors, soot, wastewater, vibrations, noise, etc. (direct emissions) onto his property, and is authorized to demand that such disturbance cease and to be compensated for the damage suffered.

Both laws have the same force, and in this case, their provisions do not collide. However, I have a suggestion for Ms. Štefanec – she probably cannot reopen the discussion on the misdemeanor order, but let her sue Fitopromet based on the aforementioned Law on Ownership, with the engagement of a lawyer.

Tagged: