On 23 March 2016 The Commercial Court of Appeal changed the decision made by the Commercial Court from Novi Sad, simultaneously referring to the controversial judgement brought by the Supreme Court of Cassation Rev 58/2013.

23 March 2016 - Judgement brought by the Commercial Court of Appeal
9 May 2013 - Judgement brought by the Supreme Court of Cassation

All these things are being done in order to mutually protect the police (Bogdan Pušić and others), prosecutors ( RPP Deputy Djordje Ostojić, RPP Deputy Snežana Marković), judges (Stojan Jokić, Neven Vukašinović) and politicians (Maja Gojković, Igor Mirović and others ) against guilt, under an excuse to allegedly protect the City against enormous damage compensation.

In this way, they have been trying to stop the damage compensation demands against the City of Novi Sad and they are even trying to illegally accuse me by turning the investigation to the opposite direction through engagement of the experts with false university diplomas because they can put pressure on them because of that.

The contract between the City of Novi Sad and ATP Vojvodina a.d. Novi Sad was signed ten years ago and the contract was for eight years being considered by several courts of the Republic of Serbia (three times by the Commercial Court in Novi Sad, three times by the Commercial Court of Appeal in Belgrade, by Higher Court in Novi Sad) and the Courts have to take care of the contract nullity ex officio.

In its latest judgement brought on 23.03.2016, the Commercial Court of Appeal supported its claims by referring to the judgement brought by the Supreme Court of Cassation. The Supreme Court of Cassation obviously and flagrantly arbitrarily determined the facts and, based on the factual situation determined in a wrong way, it wrongly applied the laws of the Republic of Serbia. The way of making the decision as well as its very contents confirms that this court was not independent and neutral because it used an obviously arbitrary and wrong implementation of the law. In its controversial judgement Rev 58/2013 the Supreme Court of Cassation said that it was enabled to me as an investor to have a monopolistic position, that the contract was contrary to the regulations, laws, decisions made by the City, legal order and good customs. They did not have any evidence for these claims and that can be seen through of the following facts:

1) The Supreme Court of Cassation ignores the elements and the facts that the Public City Transport Company Novi Sad and the old bus station did not meet the legal conditions for functioning of intercity traffic, i.e. they did not work in accordance with the law.

2) The Supreme Court of Cassation ignores the fact that the contract with the City of Novi Sad was signed after being adopted by the City of Novi Sad Assembly when validity of concluding such a contract had been analysed. The Mayor of the City of Novi Sad is neither a singular body nor an individual and the contract she signed was not signed in her own name or on her own account – the contract was signed based on the collected analyses of the City Public Companies, The Public Company for City Planning after consulting with the expert services of the City Assembly as well as after getting opinion from the City Public Attorney whose task was to take care of the City property interests. It is not clear and there is no explanation for the idea that both the City of Novi Sad and I personally were aware of concluding of the illegal object of the contract with the same level of responsibility. The City of Novi Sad has the services which take care of the City interests, and I take care of the interests of my company and it is not my obligation to protect the interests of the City of Novi Sad.

3) According to the Article 14 of the Road Traffic Law, a municipality and city define the bus stations and the locations to be used for transport of the passengers, meaning that the City of Novi Sad was authorized to conclude the contract and fulfill its obligations, because its only obligation was to relocate the main intercity and international bus station in accordance with the General City Plan.

4) Monopoly proves the Law on Protection of Competition based on which the Commission for the Competition Protection was formed. In case of breaking and violating the competition and in accordance with this Lex Specialis, a fine is to be imposed. This Law was adopted on 14 September 2005, meaning that it could have been applied in case of the signed contract. There are about ten private bus stations in Serbia or, better to say, in almost every town in Serbia, and the prices of the station services are regulated by Serbian Chamber of Commerce. It is clear that there are not elements of monopoly here.

5) The assertion given by the Supreme Court of Cassation in which they have expressed their concern because of the illegal attempt of the parties to change the field of activities of the City Utility Company without the regulated procedure is completely unclear and incorrect because the activities of the Public Utility Company wwere relating the city and suburban public transport while the new bus station ATP Vojvodina a.d Novi Sad was intended for providing the station services for the intercity and international transport (traffic). If the Public Utility Company had started the activities relating the international and intercity bus transport and services, the City would have had to change its Founding Act. The Supreme Court of Cassation made the conclusion that the City Public Transport Company would have been deprived of giving the station services, but the Court did not analyse the fact that the Company would not have been deprived of giving the station services to the city and suburban bus transport since it is not even registered for the international and intercity transport and this was determined and confirmed by the competent Ministry of Transport.

It can be clearly concluded, on the basis of the abovementioned facts, that the decision made by the Supreme Court of Cassation which was in a synchronized way followed by the decisions made by other courts under political pressure, is obviously arbitrary and that it was made without facts relevant for making such a decision but by incorrect interpreting and implementation of the laws in Serbia. For that reason, the decision is incompatible with the guarantee of the rights provided by the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Citizens. That is why I have submitted a lawsuit to the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.