“Lebanon Debate”
The problem associated with the Valet Parking service is escalating in Broummana, in light of a number of townspeople objecting to the way public roads and sidewalks are used, in addition to the controversy over the approved tariff for the service. In this context, an activist’s objection turned into a judicial case after Oscar Company, which operates the Valet Parking service in Broummana, filed a complaint against him against the backdrop of publications in which he addressed the issue.
Activist Akram Abu Fadel had launched, along with a number of Broumana residents, an electronic petition demanding that the company be obliged to adhere to the official pricing, and directed it to the Broumana municipality. The number of signatories to it reached more than 2,200 people within about four days, according to what his lawyer reported.
According to the information, the activist was summoned to Broummana police station on the basis of a complaint for the crime of defamation and defamation, against the backdrop of his use of the words “thugs” and “mercenaries” in two publications in which he addressed the issue of Valet Parking.
During his presence at the police station, he was asked to remove the two posts, but he refused to delete them, before amending them and removing the two words in question, after which he left the police station accompanied by his lawyer.
But the issue went beyond the issue of Valet Parking itself, as one of the glaring examples is the use of sidewalks and roads in a way that raised the dissatisfaction of some residents, including placing signs or obstacles in front of private properties to prevent their owners from parking their cars.
The objection was not based on the principle of Valet Parking itself, but rather on the way public spaces are used, as the Valet company can receive cars and park them in designated parking lots, instead of using public roads and sidewalks in a way that makes it appear as if they are entirely dedicated to Valet service.
What aroused the ire of the people and visitors the most was the issue of the tariff, because the tariff charged by the “Oscar” company was higher than the required tariff, but it was later obliged to comply with the official tariff set by the Governor of Mount Lebanon, which amounted to 400 thousand liras.
Speaking to Lebanon Debate, Abu Fadel’s agent, lawyer Verena Al-Amel, explained that the case is not related to a personal dispute between her client and the Valet Parking company, but rather to a general issue related to the use of public property, roads and sidewalks in Broummana.
She said that the Valet Parking crisis in Broummana has become the subject of objection by a number of the town’s residents, against the backdrop of the use of sidewalks and public roads and the placement of tapes that prevent anyone from parking their car there, noting that any permission to use public property does not automatically mean the company’s right to take over the roads and sidewalks, and that one must know who granted the permission and the nature of this permission.
She pointed out that a number of Broummana residents launched an electronic petition protesting this reality, and more than 2,200 people signed it within about four days, noting that the petition is heading to the municipality to look into the issue and work to find a solution to it.
She added that Abu Fadel, one of the people who took the initiative to participate in the petition, posted videos on social media in which he talks about the issue and shows, in her words, how public spaces are used by Valet Parking, which led to the company filing a complaint against him and summoning him for investigation at the Broummana police station.
The client explained that she attended the investigation with her client, where he was initially asked to delete the posts, but he refused to delete them. She added that the discussion ended with him asking him to remove the words “thugs” and “mercenaries,” considering that the company considered them expressions of defamation and slander, so her client modified the posts and deleted the two words, without deleting the posts themselves.
She stressed that her client did not intend to personally attack the company, noting that, according to his testimony, he had not originally named the company in his publications, and that the issue for him related to the general principle of using public domain, and not a personal dispute with the company.
She concluded: “He has not and will not personally attack the company, because the topic is general, and he is talking about an idea and public ownership.”
