PRIČE

SUDIJA SVETLANA PROTIV SOPSTVENOG SUDA

22 Decembra, 2025

ZA TRANSPARENTNOST PO STATUTU SUDA – SVETLANA BI KAŽNJAVALA

(i ovaj nastavak se dostavlja VSTV BiH, POSKOK-u, Tužilaštvu BiH, ambasadama u BiH, svim međunarodnim organizacijama i svim domaćim i međunarodnim medijima)

Piše: Danijel Senkić / Dokumentovano.ba

Postoje trenuci kada više ne pišem da bih objašnjavao.
Pišem da bih dokumentovao konflikt.

Ne između mene i sudije.
Ne između medija i pravosuđa.

Ne između advokata i sudije.

Nego između jedne sudije i vlastite institucije.

Jer ono što imamo pred sobom više nije pitanje ukusa, interpretacije ili stila.
Ovo je direktno suprotstavljanje sudije Svetlane Stevanović zvaničnoj politici Općinskog suda u Tuzli.

I to crno na bijelo.

ŠTA SVETLANA TVRDI – DOSLOVNO

U disciplinskoj prijavi protiv advokata Mirnesa Ajanovića, sudija Svetlana Stevanović piše:

„navedeni advokat je ponizio mene kao sudiju plasirajući građanima pomenuto rješenje putem medija“

i dalje:

„ovakvim postupanjem nije povrijedio samo moju čast i integritet, nego i čast i ugled advokature“

Dakle, da prevedemo bez pravosudnog parfema:

objava javnog sudskog rješenja = poniženje sudije
• transparentnost sudskog rješenja = napad na čast sudije
• informisana javnost = disciplinski problem

To je Svetlanina logika.

A ŠTA KAŽE NJEN SUD – ZVANIČNO

Na zvaničnoj web stranici Općinskog suda u Tuzli, u pozdravnoj riječi v.d. predsjednice suda, stoji:

„Pravda ne treba samo da bude ostvarena, već treba i da se vidi da je ostvarena.“

Dalje:

„Sudske odluke ne treba da budu samo donesene, već i da budu dostupne i vidljive svima kojima pravda pripada.“

I još:

„Naša je obaveza da transparentnim radom doprinesemo vladavini prava i očuvanju povjerenja javnosti.“

Dakle, sud – kao institucija – poručuje:

sudske odluke moraju biti vidljive
• javnost ih ima pravo vidjeti
• transparentnost je obaveza, ne prijetnja

PA SAD, DA SE DOGOVORIMO – SVETLANA – KO OVDJE LAŽE – TI ILI SUD?

Ili:

Sud laže javnost na svojoj web stranici
ili
Sudija Svetlana Stevanović radi protiv suda u kojem sudi

Treće nema.

Jer ako je objava sudske odluke:
• po sudu – poželjna – i potrebna
• a po Svetlani – poniženje

onda imamo institucionalni raskol.

Sud ide jednim putem.
Svetlana ide drugim – stranputicom.

I to nije lapsus.
To je svjestan izbor.

SVETLANA VS. TRANSPARENTNOST

U praksi, Svetlanin model izgleda ovako:

sudska odluka je javna – ali dok je niko ne vidi
• rješenje je zakonito – dok Kantonalni sud ne pogleda
• javnost nema pravo znati – ali ako sazna – ima da šuti
• advokat smije braniti – ali da ne govori kako sudim
• sud je transparentan – ali bez mene

To nije pravosuđe.
To je zatvoreni krug samoodbrane zbog poništenih odluka od strane Kantonalnog suda.

A ONDA – JOŠ GORE

Sudija ne samo da prijavljuje advokata zbog objave odluke.

Ona na ročištu:
• ispituje svjedoke odakle im prijava
• nervozno traži ko je „proslijedio“ dokument
• ponaša se kao da je transparentnost – curenje tajne, kao da smo upali u Pentagon

To nije sudijsko ponašanje.
To je panika pred javnošću.

I DA NE ZABORAVIMO – KONTEKST

Ne radi se o bilo kakvom rješenju.

Radi se o rješenjima koja je:
• Kantonalni sud u Tuzli dva puta poništio kao nezakonita

I sada sudija:
• ne brani zakonitost
• ne brani odluku
• ne brani pravo

nego napada onoga ko je pokazao njenu javnu odluku.

Svetlano, to je kao da vozač prijavi radar jer je pokazao nedozvoljenu brzinu.

ZAKLJUČAK – BEZ UBLAŽAVANJA

Sudija Svetlana Stevanović danas stoji:

protiv transparentnosti koju njen sud javno promoviše
• protiv prava javnosti da vidi sudske odluke
• protiv advokata jer nije šutio
• protiv medija jer su radili svoj posao
protiv Kantonalnog suda koji je njene odluke kao nezakonite poništio

I zato ovo više nije lični spor.
Ovo je institucionalni problem.

Jer ako jedna sudija zloupotrebljava službenu dužnost da bi kažnjavala vidljivost sudskih odluka,
onda je pitanje vremena kada će:

pravda ponovo postati – zatvorena prostorija.

A dok se to ne desi, mi nećemo raditi ono što sutkinja Svetlana traži, mi ćemo raditi ono što sud kaže da treba:

učiniti pravdu vidljivom – a sudske odluke transparentnim.

Feljton se nastavlja.
Sljedeći nastavak ide još direktnije – sa konkretnim posljedicama.

Jer, Svetlana – svjetlo se ne gasi prijavama.
Samo se pojačava.

JUDGE SVETLANA AGAINST HER OWN COURT

FOR TRANSPARENCY UNDER THE COURT STATUTE – SVETLANA WOULD PUNISH

THE COURT AND ME – Svetlana Stevanović
Serial

Written by: Danijel Senkić / Dokumentovano.ba

(this installment is also delivered to the HJPC of BiH, POSKOK, the Prosecutor’s Office of BiH, embassies in BiH, all international organizations, and all domestic and international media)

There are moments when I no longer write in order to explain.
I write to document a conflict.
Not between me and a judge.
Not between the media and the judiciary.
Not between an attorney and a judge.
But between one judge and her own institution.

Because what we have before us is no longer a matter of taste, interpretation, or style.
This is a direct confrontation between Judge Svetlana Stevanović and the official policy of the Municipal Court in Tuzla.
And it is black on white.

WHAT SVETLANA CLAIMS – LITERALLY

In the disciplinary complaint against attorney Mirnes Ajanović, Judge Svetlana Stevanović writes:

“the said attorney humiliated me as a judge by presenting the mentioned ruling to citizens through the media”

and further:

“by such conduct he did not only violate my honor and integrity, but also the honor and reputation of the legal profession”

So, translated without judicial perfume:

publication of a public court ruling = humiliation of the judge
• transparency of a court ruling = an attack on the judge’s honor
• an informed public = a disciplinary problem

That is Svetlana’s logic.

AND WHAT HER COURT SAYS – OFFICIALLY

On the official website of the Municipal Court in Tuzla, in the welcoming address of the Acting President of the Court, it states:

“Justice should not only be done, but it should also be seen to be done.”

Further:

“Court decisions should not only be rendered, but should also be accessible and visible to all to whom justice belongs.”

And also:

“It is our duty, through transparent work, to contribute to the rule of law and preserve public trust.”

So the court—as an institution—sends a clear message:

court decisions must be visible
• the public has the right to see them
• transparency is an obligation, not a threat

SO LET’S AGREE, SVETLANA – WHO IS LYING HERE: YOU OR THE COURT?

Either:

the Court is lying to the public on its own website, or
Judge Svetlana Stevanović is acting against the court in which she serves.

There is no third option.

Because if the publication of a court decision is:

according to the court – desirable and necessary,
• but according to Svetlana – humiliation,

then we are dealing with an institutional split.

The court goes one way.
Svetlana goes another—down a side road.

And this is not a slip of the tongue.
It is a conscious choice.

SVETLANA VS. TRANSPARENCY

In practice, Svetlana’s model looks like this:

a court decision is public—but only while no one sees it
• a ruling is lawful—until the Cantonal Court looks at it
• the public has no right to know—but if it does find out, it must keep quiet
• an attorney may defend—but must not speak about how I judge
• the court is transparent—but without me

That is not justice.
That is a closed circle of self-defense after decisions have been annulled by the Cantonal Court.

AND THEN – EVEN WORSE

The judge does not only report an attorney for publishing a decision.
At the hearing she:

questions witnesses about where they obtained the complaint
• nervously looks for who “forwarded” the document
• behaves as if transparency were a leak of state secrets—as if we had broken into the Pentagon

That is not judicial conduct.
That is panic in the face of the public.

AND LET US NOT FORGET – THE CONTEXT

This is not about just any ruling.
It concerns rulings that the Cantonal Court in Tuzla annulled twice as unlawful.

And now the judge:

does not defend legality,
• does not defend the decision,
• does not defend the law,

but attacks the one who showed her public ruling.

Svetlana, that is like a driver reporting the speed camera because it showed an illegal speed.

CONCLUSION – WITHOUT SOFTENING

Judge Svetlana Stevanović today stands:

against the transparency her court publicly promotes,
• against the public’s right to see court decisions,
• against the attorney because he did not remain silent,
• against the media for doing their job,
• against the Cantonal Court that annulled her decisions as unlawful.

And that is why this is no longer a personal dispute.
This is an institutional problem.

Because if one judge abuses official authority in order to punish the visibility of court decisions,
then it is only a matter of time before justice once again becomes a closed room.

Until that happens, we will not do what Judge Svetlana demands.
We will do what the court itself says must be done:
make justice visible—and court decisions transparent.

The serial continues.
The next installment will be even more direct—with concrete consequences.

Because, Svetlana—light is not extinguished by complaints.
It only grows stronger.

Vezani tekstovi:

Urednik Dokumentovano.ba i sutkinja Svetlana Stevanović na službenom dejtu. Provodadžija – Regionalna advokatska komora Tuzla

UVOD U FELJTON: SUD I JA – Svetlana Stevanović

POČETAK KRAJA SUDSKOG NASILJA NAD PRAVOM NA SLOBODU GOVORA

LAŽE LI SUDIJA – ILI ADVOKAT?

KO NAM SUDI? – SVJEDOČENJE KAO UPOZORENJE!

PRIZOR PONAŠANJA SUDIJE S ROČIŠTA KOJI TREBA UĆI U UDŽBENIKE – ALI POD RUBRIKU: UPOZORENJE, NE METOD!

SUDIJA KOJA PRIJAVLJUJE NEISTINU A NA ROČIŠTU NE PITA ŠTA JE NETAČNO – OTKRIVA STRAH OD ISTINE

MENE NE INTERESUJE DANIJEL – SAMO ME INTERESUJE MIRNES

„JE L’ SE OVAKO I SUDI, SVETLANA?“