Federico Pignatelli: "Ce n'est pas une dispute sur les fenêtres, c'est une question de liberté d'expression !"

An ongoing legal dispute has escalated between the Slovenian company Eurocapital Partners Estate and the Italian banking group UniCredit over a high-profile property located on Wolfovi 1 in Ljubljana. The central issue revolves around a temporary court order issued by the Ljubljana District Court, which requires Eurocapital to remove messages displayed on the windows of the building within three days. These messages include the slogan "We don't trust UniCredit" as well as content related to unpaid rent, operational costs, removal of items, and damage caused to the premises during UniCredit's occupancy. Additionally, Eurocapital must take down its website that detailed these claims.

The conflict dates back to the denationalization of the property and disputes over a lease agreement between the current owner and UniCredit, who were former tenants. Eurocapital has challenged the court’s decision and plans to file an appeal. Federico Pignatelli, an Italian-American businessman and director of Eurocapital, expressed concern about the implications of the court ruling, emphasizing that it goes beyond the dispute over window displays and touches upon broader issues of freedom of speech.

In response to the court order, Pignatelli stated he received the decision with great concern, not just for himself but because of what it signifies more broadly. He believes the public has a right to be informed and follow the dispute involving one of Ljubljana’s most prominent buildings. He plans to challenge the order with an appeal, confident that further proceedings will reveal the truth. He noted that the court did not hear his side before issuing the order, adding to his concerns.

UniCredit has claimed that the actions taken by Eurocapital are part of a campaign aimed at damaging the bank’s reputation. However, Pignatelli disagrees with this characterization and insists on presenting his case in court. He finds it absurd that UniCredit would claim irreparable harm to its reputation, given its vast financial resources. He argues that the only reasonable solution would be for UniCredit to fully settle their debt, pay for the extensive work done in removing tons of equipment and other items from the premises, and compensate for all damages caused by their irresponsible behavior over the past 30 years they occupied the historic building.

Pignatelli emphasized that freedom of expression includes the right to criticize, even when the subject is a powerful institution such as a major bank. He warned that if criticism can be silenced through a temporary court order before the facts are established, then not only individuals but also society as a whole could be stifled. He believes that UniCredit approached the judicial system with the intent to silence him and prevent the truth from becoming public knowledge, thereby protecting itself from being held accountable for potential abuses of power.

Despite respecting the judiciary, Pignatelli stated that Eurocapital will comply with the current court order while using all available legal means to challenge it, starting with an appeal. He affirmed that he will not relinquish his rights and will fight for them legally until the end.

He addressed the public, stating that the dispute is driven by a long-standing effort to clear up wrongdoing surrounding the property, which involves several individuals including Tjaša Andrea Prosenc, her son Gregor Prosenc, Živana Bele Potočnik, and the well-known Miho Ažman. He pledged to do everything within the bounds of the law to expose the truth about these alleged abuses and ensure that the circumstances involving UniCredit are fairly and impartially judged, as appropriate for a democratic and modern state that guarantees the rule of law and protects freedom of speech.

The matter remains under judicial review. Eurocapital has announced its intention to appeal against the temporary order, and the validity of both parties' claims has yet to be determined by a final court decision.