The High Court wrongly concluded that there was no room for charges against Goran Vesić, Anita Dimovski and Jelena Tanaskć, because the criminal offense charged against them is characterized by inaction, it was stated, among other things, in the explanation of the Appellate Court in Novi Sad in in the case of "Canopy"", reports Forbes Serbia today.
The Court of Appeal in Novi Sad accepted the appeal of the senior public prosecutor against the decision of the High Court suspending the proceedings against the former minister Goran Vesić, the acting director of the Railway Infrastructure of Serbia Jelena Tanasković, the former assistant minister Anita Dimoskand, as well as against the professor of the Faculty of Civil Engineering in Belgrade, Milan Spremić, and representatives of the expert supervision of the railway reconstruction project to Hungary, Marina Gavrilović and Dejan Todorović.
Explanation
As the court explained its decision in a 31-page decision, which Forbes Serbia had access to, the High Court drew the wrong conclusion that there was no room for accusations against the six defendants.
A review of the decision of the Court of Appeal confirms that all six defendants were sent to house arrest, in which they will not be able to use the telephone and the Internet, nor will they be able to receive other persons, all because of disturbing the public and enabling the smooth conduct of criminal proceedings.
On the other hand, the appeals of the defense attorneys of Nebojša Šurlan and the other defendants were rejected.
In the explanation of the decision, the Court of Appeal stated that in the question of sufficiency of the evidence, "the issue of guilt is not assessed, but the justification of doubt for presenting the matter before the court, and that doubt should be supported by concrete facts".
"The panel that examines the indictment is not authorized to assess whether the facts and circumstances on which the indictment is based provide reliable evidence that the defendant committed a criminal offense or whether the conditions for him to be declared guilty have been met, because this is not necessary for the indictment. It is sufficient for the indictment to survive that it can be concluded from the evidence obtained that the defendant is justifiably suspected of having committed a criminal offense," states the Court of Appeal, interpreting the action of the High Court in Novi Sad, which the senior public prosecutor complained about and whose appeal now accepted.
"The panel that decides on the indictment does not engage in the psychological analysis of various evidence or in the assessment of contradictory evidence... It only assesses whether there is evidence and whether that evidence is suitable to confirm the conclusion that the defendant is justifiably suspected of having committed a criminal offense", the Appellate Court further explains what was the "mistake" in the High Court's action.
Photo: Vreme/Katarina StevanovićVJT in Novi Sad filed a complaint in the case of a falling canopy
"The conclusion of the first-instance court that there is not enough evidence is considered wrong considering the type and number of evidence, states the Court of Appeal and considers that the High Court wrongly insists, when it comes to Tanasković, Vesić and Dimoska, that in the case of their criminal offense it is necessary that the perpetrator does not act according to regulations exclusively in the field of protection measures.
"It is characteristic of the criminal offense that they are charged with that it consists in doing nothing," added the explanation.
"It is sufficient that he has the capacity of an official or responsible person and that he did not act according to any regulation, and that this resulted in causing danger to the life or body of people," the court believes.
"In addition, it should be borne in mind that they are charged with violating the Law on Safety in Railway Traffic, which stipulates that passenger spaces must be arranged in such a way as to guarantee the safety of passengers," the appeal states.
Failures of the Ministry of Construction
When it comes to Vesić and Dimoska, the Court of Appeal states that the Ministry of Construction, as an administrative body, performs internal administrative supervision.
It consists of supervision over the legality of work and supervision over the expediency of the work of the bodies that are subject to this supervision.
"In this sense, the Ministry is authorized to warn of observed irregularities and determine the measures and deadline for their elimination, to issue instructions and order the undertaking of work it deems necessary. According to the law on state administration, these powers belong to both the head or the minister and the assistant minister who manages the rounded area of the ministry's work," the panel of the Court of Appeal points out.
He adds that the provisions of the Regulation on principles for internal organization and systematization of workplaces in ministries also refer to this.
Photo: FoNet/Instagram Miloš VucevicThe collapsed canopy of the Novi Sad railway station
Inspection findings
In listing the evidence against them, the Appellate Court concludes that there is reasonable doubt that Vesić and Dimoski committed a criminal offense.
As evidence for this, he specifically mentions the decision of the construction inspection from November 2, because it shows that the building in question was still a construction site when it was opened.
The appellate court also refers to the inspection report from November 8, in which it was stated that the Ministry issued the Serbian Railways Infrastructure with a certificate of the work report dated October 16, which was submitted to the construction inspection on November 1 at 3:40 p.m.
This report establishes the observed illegalities in relation to the object in question, that no measures were taken to prevent danger to people, as well as that during the execution of works on wing B, there was no control and quality control of the execution of all types of works and the application of regulations, standards and technical norms, protocols on the release into commercial function of part of the Novi Sad station building from July 5.
Ordering house arrest
The Appellate Court also concludes that the Higher Court made the wrong conclusion that there is not enough evidence for reasonable suspicion that Spremić committed a criminal offense.
The High Court bases this conclusion on the fact that the project envisaged only the replacement of the facade transom (the construction of the glass facade on wing B), and that according to the opinion of the experts, the replacement of the facade transom falls under the lines of adaptation, not reconstruction, the Court of Appeal points out.
"The measure of detention can last as long as there is a need for it, and at the longest until the verdict becomes final", states the Court of Appeal, that is, according to this specific decision, it can last up to three months, which means that it would have to be extended further by new decisions.
In the explanation of the decision on custody, the court refers to the fact that for these criminal acts punishments of more than 10 years are foreseen, which fulfills the condition that they should be in custody due to possible disturbance of the public.
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!
