Higher Court in Novi Sad: Indictment against Goran Vesić, Tanasković, Dimoski and three others in the case of the collapsed canopy rejected

(Patria) - The pre-trial panel of the Higher Court in Novi Sad has decided that there is no basis for charges against Goran Vesić, Jelena Tanasković, Anita Dimoski, Milan Spremić, Marina Gavrilović, and Dejan Todorović in the case of the collapsed canopy at the Novi Sad Railway Station, and that criminal proceedings are to be stayed.

Vesić, Tanasković, and Dimoski were accused of a grave offense against causing general danger, and the other three of a grave offense against general safety in connection with the criminal offense of improper and incorrect execution of construction works, according to the indictment of the Higher Public Prosecutor's Office in Novi Sad dated September 16, 2025.

The panel, as stated in the decision we had access to, believes that there is insufficient evidence to suspect that the accused committed the criminal offenses they were charged with.

The measure prohibiting leaving their residence has been lifted for Jelena Tanasković, Spremić, Marina Gavrilović, and Dejan Todorović, and they have been ordered to be released immediately, while Dimoski and Vesić remain under house arrest by order of the Higher Court in Belgrade.

As stated, the indictment of the Higher Public Prosecutor's Office in Novi Sad is confirmed with regard to Nebojša Šurlan, Slobodan Naumović, Milan Jelkić, Ljiljana Milić Marković, Jasna Stojiljković Milić, Zorica Slavković Marjanović, and Dušan Janković.

Regarding the other accused, the court found that there is sufficient evidence for a justified suspicion that the accused Nebojša Šurlan, Slobodan Naumović, Milan Jekić, Ljiljana Milić Marković, Jasna Stojiljković Milić, Zorica Slavković Marjanović, and Dušan Janković committed the criminal offenses that are the subject of the indictment.

Taking into account the aforementioned evidence, from which the previously stated conclusion arises, the court assessed that there are grounds for suspicion that the accused acted contrary to regulations, and that there were omissions in the execution of works, maintenance of the facility, and supervision, which ultimately led to the consequences that are the subject of the indictment.

Namely, the case files indicate that in connection with the execution of works on the canopy, and particularly with the phases of work execution and supervision, there were deviations from the project documentation, omissions in control, and inconsistencies in the implementation of technical standards, which resulted in the compromise of the facility's safety.

The court, considering all of the above, found that these omissions are causally linked to the occurrence of harmful consequences, and that at this stage of the proceedings, the standard of justified suspicion for confirming the indictment has been met.