What the Novi Sad Trial Will Try to Establish
About three months before the second anniversary of the Novi Sad railway station canopy collapse, the criminal trial into its causes still has not begun. The court must first work through a large volume of evidence, and it is unclear whether the main hearing will open before Nov 1, 2026.
The trial is expected to determine what caused the canopy to fall and who is responsible for the deaths of 16 people. A detailed review by Forbes Serbia of the investigative record and public reporting has identified ten key questions the proceedings should answer. These focus on why wing B of the station was in use, who decided to remove a protective fence in front of it, whether warnings about falling debris were properly handled, and whether the corrosion that weakened the canopy could have been detected earlier.
Beyond the immediate causes, the case raises questions about the quality of the building when it was constructed in the 1960s, how the 2024 renovation was ordered and supervised, whether some instructions were given only verbally, and whether accelerating the works contributed to the failure. The trial is also expected to test whether the 13 people currently on the indictment are the right set of defendants, and whether Serbia's construction regulations were clear enough to prevent the tragedy.
A separate potential proceeding on corruption would examine how infrastructure projects in Serbia are financed and whether anyone profited improperly. The Novi Sad trial itself is meant to clarify how roles were divided during the project, who issued instructions, and whether the deaths could have been avoided.
The Stakes Behind the Novi Sad Courtroom Questions
Wing B: A Decision With No Paper Trail
The central issue is simple: people were under the canopy when it collapsed, so the court must explain why the space was open. The source material asks when and under what procedure wing B was put into use, who took that decision, and whether a supposed technical inspection was actually carried out only to commission a substation. It also notes that an "internal acceptance" document cited in the case is not a category that exists in Serbian law. Witness testimony about the fence removal and about passenger warnings that something was falling from the roof will test whether any of these decisions left a written trace.
The Hidden Corrosion and the Detection Debate
Forensic experts have said the corrosion in the steel hangers was inside the roof and not visible to the naked eye. The question is whether it could have been found with a special camera or only through destructive testing, such as breaking concrete or drilling into walls. That matters because there may have been no obvious warning signs such as large cracks or sagging beams. The court will also have to consider whether a small gap between the roof entry and a pipe was a visible signal that something was wrong, and whether the canopy itself was correctly installed when the building went up in the 1960s.
IŽS, the Missing Archive Project and the Chain of Responsibility
Infrastruktura železnice Srbije, the state railway company, sits at the center of the accountability question. The lead architect working on the architecture portion of the project testified that she never received a response to her inquiry about the station's archival project. Police later seized that document from the company's premises. The trial will need to establish who was responsible for checking the archive and sharing the file with the designers. The review also raises whether responsibility extends beyond the current defendants to previous managers of the station building, and whether the state railway company even employed a structural engineer to monitor station buildings before the disaster.
A Works Notification Filed Two Weeks Before the Collapse
The case includes a striking administrative detail: a works notification for the station building was issued on Oct 16, 2024, roughly two weeks before the collapse, even though the renovation was almost finished. A separate notification from March 2022 described only ground works. Because construction inspections can be triggered by such notifications, the discrepancy suggests a gap in oversight. An inspection visit might not have prevented the collapse, but it could have forced the project to operate according to the rules.
Thirteen Names on the Indictment: Enough?
The source material asks whether prosecutors limited themselves to a narrow circle of directly involved people or properly investigated everyone formally in the decision-making chain. Named defendants include Jelena Tanasković and Nebojša Šurlan, both linked to the railway company, but the review suggests other positions existed in the management structure. It also points to broader conditions: a small engineering market where specialists often work directly for the state, potential conflicts of interest, political influence over the project, and attempts to shift blame onto the profession rather than the decision-makers.
What to Watch as the Novi Sad Hearing Approaches
For those following the case, the concrete issues to watch are:
- Whether the Novi Sad court opens the main hearing before Nov 1, 2026; the start date remains uncertain because of the volume of evidence.
- Testimony on whether wing B's use, the fence removal and the reported falling-debris warnings were ever documented, since the prosecution's case depends on both the paper trail and witness accounts.
- Whether the court accepts the experts' view that corroded hanger wires required special camera inspection or destructive testing, and whether that standard was realistic for a 2024 renovation.
- For Serbia's construction sector, the verdict may redefine how structural stability checks are documented and how works notifications are reconciled with actual site activity.
Comments 0