„Kada sudija pita: ‘Kako ste došli do moje disciplinske prijave?’ – a odgovor stoji u pet kancelarija i tri institucije“
Piše: Danijel Senkić / Dokumentovano.ba
UVODNA NAPOMENA KOJU JAVNOST MORA ZNATI
Ova disciplinska prijava sutkinje Svetlane Stevanović protiv advokata dr. sci. Mirnesa Ajanovića, doktora pravnih nauka i docenta — ne samo da je činjenično neutemeljena, nego je već sada, još prije okončanja postupka, pravno jasno da je neosnovana po definiciji.
Zašto?
Jer je za potpuno istu okolnost, u istoj činjeničnoj matrici, protiv istog advokata, zbog naših tekstova na Dokumentovano.ba — prijava sutkinje Šejle Ćatić već odbijena kao neosnovana, i to Rješenjem Regionalne advokatske komore Tuzla broj 5-DT-031/25 od 14.11.2025. godine — na 24 strane obrazloženja.
U narednim nastavcima ćemo detaljno pokazati:
- dokumente,
- datume,
- uporednu analizu dvije identične prijave,
- i kako je jedna završila u košu — a druga završila u disciplinskom proširivanju i pokušaju progona.
Drugim riječima:
„Ako je već utvrđeno da za istu činjenicu nema prekršaja — onda ga ni u ovoj prijavi ne može biti.“
I javnost neka zna odmah:
Advokat Mirnes Ajanović ne može biti odgovoran za tekstove Dokumentovano.ba.
Ali, da ne ispadne da ga branimo, zna on dobro braniti i sebe i druge —
kada uskoro objavimo njegove odgovore i podneske — brat bratu, oko hiljadu stranica precizne pravne argumentacije i sudske prakse — mnogima će se zavrtjeti u glavi.
Idemo sada na sam početak feljtona.
DAN KADA JE PALA MASKA „STROGE TAJNOSTI“
Disciplinski postupak u Regionalnoj advokatskoj komori Tuzla od 27.11.2025. trebao je biti rutinska faza.
Ali pretvorio se u scenu pravosudnog teatra, nakon što je advokat Mirnes Ajanović postavio svoja pitanja, a disciplinski tužilac izjavio da nema pitanja — sutkinja Svetlana Stevanović odlučila ispitivati mene.
I to ne o onome što je predmet postupka.
Ne o činjeničnim osnovama.
Ne o navodima.
Nego:
„Kako ste došli do moje disciplinske prijave?“
Pitanje postavljeno s izrazom sudije Svetlane kao da je riječ o vojnoj tajni NATO-a, a ne o običnom službenom aktu koji je prošao:
- pisarnicu,
- protokol,
- kabinet predsjednika suda,
- uposlenike Komore,
- disciplinskog tužioca,
- disciplinski sud,
- pa mjesecima bio u spisu.
I nakon svega — isto pitanje, iznova i iznova:
„Otkud vama moja prijava, odgovorite?“
Na trenutak sam mislio da sam u poglavlju „fantastični realizam pravosuđa“.
Ali ne — bilo je stvarno.
PITANJE SA ZAKLJUČKOM: ŠKOLSKI PRIMJER KAKO SUDIJA NE SMIJE VODITI POSTUPAK, JER HOĆE POD SILOM DA KAŽEM DA MI JE DOSTAVIO ADVOKAT
Sudija Stevanović je postavljala pitanja koja već sadrže zaključak – da mi je advokat dostavio prijavu — što je klasičan sindrom situacije u kojoj:
- dokaza nema,
- ali ambicija ima,
- pa se zaključak ugrađuje u pitanje ne bi li postao istina.
Pokušavala je objasniti nešto neobjašnjivo:
kako dokument koji postoji na deset mjesta nije „mogo vidjeti niko“.
I zašto ne bi smio? Još uvijek mi ne bi bilo jasno da nisam vidio šta piše, a biće i vama kada budemo prezentirali disciplinsku prijavu i analizirali je dio po dio.
Šta se krije?
Zašto bi disciplinska prijava bila privatna emocija, a ne službeni akt?
Sve to izvedeno uz nervozu, stalno lomljenje prstiju, unošenje mi u facu, bila je samo jedan lakat desno od mene, uz prekide, objašnjavanje sa disciplinskim sudom što pita nešto što nema osnova ni pitati, rasprskavanje tonova i pokušaj sudskog egzibicionizma — pred disciplinskim sudom.
LOGIKA KOJA NE POSTOJI U ZAKONIMA, ALI POSTOJI U SVIJETU SVETLANE STEVANOVIĆ
U mnogim pitanjima koje mi je postavljala, provlačila se jedna dominantna poruka:
„Advokat koga ja disciplinski prijavim — ne smije nikome reći da sam ga prijavila.
Niti smije nikome pokazati prijavu.
Niti smije braniti samog sebe.“
Kao da je očekivala:
- automatsko priznavanje krivice,
- automatsku šutnju,
- automatsko povlačenje,
- i ukidanje osnovnih profesionalnih i ljudskih prava.
Kao da podnošenjem disciplinske prijave sudija postaje:
- tužilac,
- sud,
- žrtva,
- cenzor,
- i vrhovni arbitar svega što se smije i ne smije reći.
U jednom momentu izgledala je iskreno šokirana da advokat ima pravo:
- reći svom klijentu šta se događa,
- dostaviti mu relevantne dokumente,
- braniti se,
- iznijeti pravnu argumentaciju,
- govoriti o nezakonitosti postupanja.
Kao da je očekivala da će se desiti ono što želi:
da podnese prijavu — i da advokat sve prizna, sve potpiše, sve prihvati.
Bez dokaza.
Bez osnova.
Bez zakona.
Ali — pogrešnu osobu je odabrala.
Svetlana se zafrkala.
Udarila je na pogrešnog.
Advokat Mirnes Ajanović nije neko kome se prijetnjama, insinuacijama ili pritiscima može nametnuti šutnja.
Nije neko pred kim pravni apsurdi prolaze.
I nije neko koga sudijske ljutnje utišavaju.
…i nije neko ko će pred bilo čime pognuti glavu!
Dobila je suprotno:
pravnu, dokumentovanu, argumentovanu odbranu
koja će, kada bude objavljena u svojoj punoj širini, biti primjer svim advokatima kako se brani profesija – i građani.
„POSLALA SAM JE SAMO KOMORI, A ONI ADVOKATU!” –
Sudija Stevanović je pitanjima tvrdila:
„Prijava je dostavljena samo advokatu, niko drugi je nije mogao vidjeti.“
A u stvarnosti, prijava je prošla:
- Pisarnicu Općinskog suda
- Protokol
- Kabinet predsjednika suda
- Uvid više uposlenika Komore
- Disciplinskog tužioca (koji ju je samoinicijativno proširio!)
- Tri člana disciplinske komisije
- Kompletan spis koji se vodi mjesecima
I onda:
„Pisali ste o tome prije pola godine! Kako?“
Pa… tako što javni službeni dokument nije torba sa zlatom zakopana ispod trešnje, nego službeni akt.
I putuje.
I stoji.
I postoji.
I vidi ga onaj ko ima pravo da ga vidi.
KO JE SVE IMAO PRIJAVU? – PA NJEN PREDSJEDNIK MUHAMED TULUMOVIĆ (INAČE POZNAT PO 12 GODINA NEZAKONITOG MANDATA!)
Posebno zanimljivo:
Sudija zaboravlja da je prijavu imao i njen tadašnji predsjednik suda — Muhamed Tulumović, čovjek za kojeg javnost, domaća i međunarodna – zna da je:
- imao 12 godina nezakonitog „mandata“,
- bez ispunjenih osnovnih uslova,
- bez prethodnog statusa sudije Općinskog suda.
I nakon svega toga — problem je:
„Kako je novinar saznao?“
MOJ ODGOVOR – KRAJ PRAVOSUDNE MISTERIJE
Na kraju sam joj rekao ono što nije očekivala, bar sudeći po zgrčenoj faci:
„Ne, nisam dobio od advokata Mirnesa Ajanovića.
Dokument mi je dostavio Evropski univerzitet ‘Kallos’ Tuzla.“
Univerzitet:
- koji advokat zastupa,
- kojem mora dostavljati svu dokumentaciju,
- koji je direktno pogođen njenim nezakonitim odlukama,
- čije su dvije odluke iste sudije Kantonalni sud već dva puta srušio.
A da je disciplinska prijava podnesena zbog naših tekstova o tim istim nezakonitostima — o tome uskoro više.
U posebnom nastavku.
ZAKLJUČAK PRVOG NASTAVKA
Kada sudija koja podnese prijavu:
- dostavi je na pet mjesta,
- uključi desetak ljudi,
- u tri institucije,
- uđe u zvanični spis,
- postane predmet postupka,
onda nema tajne.
Ali pokušaj da se pred disciplinskim sudom stvori privid „stroge konspiracije“ — bio je trenutak koji je jasno pokazao zašto ovaj feljton mora postojati.
I zašto će istina imati dva termina dnevno:
- 08:00 — feljton o Dženexu i pravosudnim igrama,
- 18:00 — SUD I JA: Svetlana Stevanović.
THE BEGINNING OF THE END OF JUDICIAL VIOLENCE
AGAINST THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH**
THE COURT AND I – Svetlana Stevanović
SERIAL
“When a judge asks: ‘How did you get my disciplinary complaint?’ – while the answer sits in five offices and three institutions.”
By: Danijel Senkić / Dokumentovano.ba
A PRELIMINARY NOTE THE PUBLIC MUST KNOW
This disciplinary complaint filed by Judge Svetlana Stevanović against attorney Dr. sc. Mirnes Ajanović, Doctor of Legal Sciences and Assistant Professor — is not only factually unfounded.
It is already, even before the end of the proceedings, legally clear that it is unfounded by definition.
Why?
Because for the exact same circumstance, based on the same factual matrix, against the same attorney, and again because of our articles on Dokumentovano.ba, Judge Šejla Ćatić’s complaint has already been dismissed as unfounded — by the Decision of the Regional Bar Association Tuzla, no. 5-DT-031/25 of 14 November 2025, with 24 pages of reasoning.
In the upcoming installments we will show in detail:
- the documents,
• the dates,
• the comparative analysis of the two identical complaints,
• and how one ended up in the trash — while the other grew into disciplinary expansion and a failed attempt at persecution.
In other words:
“If it is already legally established that the same conduct is not a violation — then it cannot be a violation here either.”
And let the public know immediately:
Attorney Mirnes Ajanović cannot be responsible for texts published by Dokumentovano.ba.
But — not to make it seem like we are defending him — he knows very well how to defend himself and others.
When we publish his answers and submissions — roughly a thousand pages of precise legal argumentation and case law — many will feel dizzy.
Now we move to the beginning of this serial.
THE DAY THE MASK OF ‘STRICT SECRECY’ FELL
The disciplinary hearing at the Regional Bar Association Tuzla on 27 November 2025 was supposed to be a routine phase.
But it turned into a stage of judicial theatre when, after attorney Ajanović asked his questions, and the disciplinary prosecutor stated he had none — Judge Svetlana Stevanović decided to interrogate me.
And not about the subject of the proceedings.
Not about facts.
Not about the allegations.
But:
“How did you get my disciplinary complaint?”
A question asked with the expression of a judge who believes she is guarding a NATO military secret — rather than an ordinary official document that had travelled through:
- the court registry,
• the protocol office,
• the President’s office,
• multiple staff members of the Bar Association,
• the disciplinary prosecutor,
• the disciplinary panel,
• and had been sitting in the case file for months.
And after all that — the same question, again and again:
“Where did you get my complaint, answer me.”
For a moment I thought I had entered a chapter called:
“Magical realism of the judiciary.”
But no — this was real.
A QUESTION WITH A BUILT-IN CONCLUSION:
A TEXTBOOK EXAMPLE OF HOW A JUDGE MUST NOT CONDUCT A PROCEEDING
Judge Stevanović asked questions that already contained the conclusion — that the attorney had given me the complaint — which is a classic symptom of a situation where:
- there is no evidence,
• but there is ambition,
• so the conclusion is inserted into the question in an attempt to turn it into truth.
She tried explaining the inexplicable:
how a document that exists in ten places could not have been “seen by anyone.”
And why shouldn’t it be seen?
It would still be unclear to me if I had not read the content — and it will be unclear to everyone until we publish the full disciplinary complaint and analyse it, piece by piece.
What is being hidden?
Why would a disciplinary complaint be treated like a private emotion rather than an official act?
All this performed with visible nervousness — constant finger-cracking, leaning into my face, standing one elbow away from me, interrupting, arguing with the disciplinary panel about why she is asking something she has no basis to ask, shifts in tone, and attempts at judicial theatrics — right in front of the disciplinary court.
A LOGIC THAT DOES NOT EXIST IN ANY LAW —
BUT EXISTS IN THE WORLD OF SVETLANA STEVANOVIĆ
In many of the questions she posed, one dominant message appeared:
“An attorney whom I disciplinarily report — must not tell anyone.
Must not show the complaint to anyone.
Must not defend himself.”
As if she expected:
- automatic confession,
• automatic silence,
• automatic withdrawal,
• and the abolition of basic professional and human rights.
As if by filing a disciplinary complaint, a judge becomes:
- the prosecutor,
• the court,
• the victim,
• the censor,
• and the supreme arbiter of what may and may not be said.
At one point she looked genuinely shocked that an attorney has the right to:
- tell his client what is happening,
• provide relevant documents,
• defend himself,
• present legal arguments,
• speak about unlawful conduct.
As if she expected the outcome she wanted:
that she would file a complaint — and that the attorney would admit, sign, and accept everything.
Without evidence.
Without basis.
Without law.
But — she chose the wrong person.
Svetlana miscalculated.
Badly.
Attorney Mirnes Ajanović is not someone who can be silenced with threats, insinuations, or pressure.
He is not someone before whom legal absurdities pass.
He is not someone cowed by judicial temper.
… and he is not someone who bows his head before anyone or anything.
What she got instead was:
a legal, documented, fully-argued defence
that, when published in its entirety, will stand as an example to all attorneys —
of how one defends the profession, and the citizens.
“I SENT IT ONLY TO THE BAR — AND THEY GAVE IT TO THE ATTORNEY!”
Judge Stevanović insisted through her questions:
“The complaint was given only to the attorney — no one else could have seen it.”
But in reality, the complaint passed through:
- The Registry Office of the Municipal Court
- The Court Protocol
- The Office of the Court President
- Multiple Bar Association employees
- The Disciplinary Prosecutor (who expanded it on his own initiative!)
- Three members of the Disciplinary Committee
- The complete case file in which it has been stored for months
And then:
“You wrote about it six months ago! How?”
Well… because a public official document is not a bag of gold buried under a cherry tree — it is an official act.
And it travels.
And it sits.
And it exists.
And it is seen by those who have the right to see it.
WHO ELSE HAD THE COMPLAINT? –
HER OWN PRESIDENT, MUHAMED TULUMOVIĆ
(OTHERWISE KNOWN FOR HIS 12 YEARS OF ILLEGAL ‘MANDATE’)
Especially interesting:
The judge conveniently forgot that her complaint was also in the hands of her then-President of Court — Muhamed Tulumović, a man already publicly known, domestically and internationally, for:
- holding a 12-year illegal “mandate”,
• without fulfilling the basic legal conditions,
• without ever being a judge of the Municipal Court beforehand.
And after all of that — the problem is:
“How did the journalist find out?”
MY ANSWER –
THE END OF THE JUDICIAL MYSTERY
In the end, I told her what she did not expect, judging by her cramped expression:
“No, I did not receive it from attorney Mirnes Ajanović.
The document was provided to me by the European University ‘Kallos’ Tuzla.”
The University:
- represented by attorney Ajanović,
• to whom he must deliver all documentation,
• which is directly damaged by her unlawful decisions,
• whose two decisions by the same judge have already been overturned twice by the Cantonal Court.
And the fact that her disciplinary complaint was filed because of our articles about those same unlawful decisions — more on that soon.
In a separate installment.
CONCLUSION OF THE FIRST INSTALLMENT
When a judge who files a complaint:
- sends it to five places,
• involves a dozen people,
• across three institutions,
• it enters an official file,
• becomes the subject of proceedings —
then there is no secrecy.
But the attempt to create the illusion of “strict conspiracy” before the disciplinary court — was the moment that clearly showed why this serial must exist.
And why the truth will have two daily time slots:
- 08:00 — the serial on Dženex and judicial manoeuvres,
• 18:00 — THE COURT AND I: Svetlana Stevanović.
