Public Prosecutor in Novi Sad Appeals Dismissal of Indictment in “Canopy” Case

Railway Station in Novi Sad, Nov.15 2024 (BETAPHOTO/Dragan Gojic)

The Higher Public Prosecutor’s Office in Novi Sad announced on Dec. 29 that it had filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal in Vojvodina’s capital against a decision by the Higher Court in Novi Sad to dismiss the indictment against a former minister of construction and infrastructure, Goran Vesic, his assistant Anita Dimoski, and a former director of the Railway Infrastructure public company, Jelena Tanaskovic, as well as three other defendants in the case concerning the collapse of a station canopy at the Novi Sad railway station that killed 16 people.

The appeal also challenges the part of the ruling that lifted a house arrest order imposed on the defendants.

Following a detailed analysis, the Higher Public Prosecutor’s Office in Novi Sad decided that the ruling issued by a panel of judges of the Higher Court in Novi Sad on Dec. 24 was “marred by a number of substantial violations of the criminal procedure,” noting that the decision failed to provide reasons addressing all the facts subject to evidentiary procedure, while the reasons that had been provided for were “entirely unclear and to a significant extent contradictory.”

“The Prosecution found that, in this case, the panel of judges of the Higher Court in Novi Sad drew an erroneous conclusion that there were no grounds for the indictment against the named defendants, and consequently reached an equally erroneous conclusion as to the lifting of the house arrest order for those defendants,” the Higher Public Prosecutor’s Office said.

The Office added that, in its ruling, the panel had violated the Criminal Code and incorrectly and incompletely established the facts, which the appeals pointed to.

On Dec. 24, the Higher Court in Novi Sad suspended the criminal proceedings against Jelena Tanaskovic, Goran Vesic, Anita Dimoski, Milan Spremic, Marina Gavrilovic and Dejan Todorovic in the “Canopy” case, stating that “there is insufficient evidence to support a reasonable suspicion that the named defendants committed the criminal offenses that are the subject of the indictment.”