5 February 2015

Opinion of the Press Council of Kosovo on the Complaint of Mr. Behxhet Pacolli versus the “Kosova Sot” newspaper

In its regular meeting held on 24 April 2012, following a review of the complaint of Mr. Behxhet Pacolli, against “the “Kosova Sot” newspaper which is not a member of the Press Council, in relation to an Article entitled: “Pacolli Blackmails “Limak” for “Grand”, took the following:

O P I N I O N

– To partially uphold the complaint
R E A S O N I N G
The Complainant Behxhet Pacolli from Prishtina, contends that by publishing the article on 20 March 2012 entitled “Pacolli Blackmails “Limak” for “Grand” the “Kosova Sot” newspaper acted in ungrounded, insulting, denigrating and blackmailing manner against his personality and that the article was constructed based on defamation and disinformation.
Following the administration of the written response of the “Kosova Sot” newspaper to the PCK, the PCK Board found that the newspaper published the response of the complainant entirely, which clarified many viewpoints of the complainant, and that the newspaper acted in compliance with Article IV of the Press Code of Kosovo (the Right to Reply).
However, the PCK Board held that the Article contains inaccuracies when it comes to the issue of “blackmail and intimidation” that Mr. Pacolli may have exerted on the “Limak” Company in relation to the privatisation of “Grand” Hotel.
The PCK Board found that mere delivery of information to “Limak” Company from the “Mabetex” Company which is owned by the Pacolli family which together with its partners own 60 per cent of the shares of “Grand” Hotel can not be considered as “blackmail or intimidation”. Such action was considered by the PCK as reasonable information that is a provided from one company to another on the percentage of its shares in “Grand” Hotel. So the information provided by the Complainant Mr. Pacolli, to “Limak” Company on the privatisation of “Grand” Hotel”, does not have the elements of blackmail or threat, and thus adjudicated that the complaint is well grounded in this part and was therefore partially upheld.