The Court of Appeal in Belgrade announced today that it accepted the appeals of the lawyers of the defendants in the case fall of the canopy at the railway station in Novi Sad and revoked the confirmation of the indictment of the Higher Public Prosecutor's Office (VJT) in Belgrade, returning that case to the High Court for a retrial.
It is about the indictment of the Special Department for Suppression of Corruption of the VJT in Belgrade, which charges Milutin Savović and Biljana Krstić with unscrupulous work in the service and a serious crime against general security, while Slobodan Katanić is charged with the crime of abuse of official position and a serious crime against general security.
In the explanation of the decision, published on the website Court of Appeal, the appeals of the defendants' lawyers rightly point out that the contested decision was made in significant violation of the provisions of the criminal procedure, since the reasons for all decisive facts are not stated in the explanation of the decision, while those that are given are unclear, contradictory and insufficient, so that their regularity and legality cannot be examined for now.
The first-instance court assessed that the indictment was filed by an authorized prosecutor because on February 28, 2025, the VJT passed a decision on substitution, which authorized the Prosecution for Organized Crime (TOK) to take over the proceedings in that proceeding from the Special Department for Suppression of Corruption of the VJT.
Against the decision on substitution, the chief public prosecutor of VJT filed an objection on March 3 to the High Council of Prosecution, which on March 4 issued a decision rejecting the objection.
The indictment of VJT was received in the High Court on March 4, while the prosecution received the decision of the Commission for deciding on the objection against the decision on substitution on March 5.
The Court of First Instance concluded from this that at the time the indictment was filed on March 4, the decision on substitution had not yet become final, because the Commission's decision on the objection had not been made, and the VJT had jurisdiction and legal authority to act in the case at the time the indictment was filed.
The appellate court stated that "the reasons of the first-instance court are not clear, well-argued and sufficient", because it follows from the above that the chief public prosecutor of VJT, as the complainant, did not draw up a decision on the complaint, but filed an indictment immediately after stating the complaint. The appellate court stated that "in this regard, the position of the first-instance court that the VJT in Belgrade had the legal authority to act in the case is unclear", and added that it is unclear why the first-instance court stated that on March 4, the decision on substitution from February 28 did not take effect, since the decision becomes legally binding on the day the second-instance decision is made, and not on the day it is served on the party in the proceedings.
Source: FoNet
Real journalism costs money, and we will not be bought by tycoons and corporations. Support us with a one-time or monthly donation. The time for it is now!
