Demands

The students demanded the publication of the complete documentation related to the reconstruction of the Railway Station in Novi Sad. The initial response to this demand was that only the Prosecutor’s Office had access to the documentation, but shortly thereafter, it was partially published by other state authorities. Our colleagues from technical faculties, as well as from the Association of Architects of Serbia, have noticed that the published documents are missing key documentation necessary to establish the criminal responsibility of those who managed the reconstruction of the Railway Station and were involved in it.

Specifically, the missing documents include contracts that show who did what on the Railway Station and how much it cost, why the reconstruction cost increased fivefold, as well as who is responsible for the Railway Station being ceremonially opened twice without an occupancy permit.

On 12 December, the Government of the Republic of Serbia ordered the Ministry of Construction, Transport, and Infrastructure (MCTI) to publish all documents “at their disposal” and “related to the possible commission of a criminal offense due to the collapse of the canopy on the station building in Novi Sad.” This formulation leaves room for the Ministry to withhold certain documents if it deems them unavailable or not related to the canopy collapse. As a result, 195 documents were published, compared to the 857 held by the Prosecutor’s Office.

By thoroughly reviewing the published documents, we identified deficiencies, of which the key ones are as follows:

• Contracts with contractors and subcontractors
• Interim and final situations, bills and invoices
• Tender documentation for contractors and subcontractors

Document 03, dated 9 October 2017:

Project assignment for the development of the conceptual design with a Justification Study for the modernization, reconstruction, and construction of the BG-SU-State Border Railway.

MISSING:

• The technology of work execution and Proposal for the technology, organization, and dynamics of work execution in accordance with the characteristics of the designed facilities (as required by the project assignment).

Document 04, dated 13 December 2017

Decision on the Establishment of the Joint Commission for QUALITATIVE, QUANTITATIVE, AND FINANCIAL DOCUMENTATION CONTROL subject to the Contract for the Development of the Conceptual Design with the Justification Study for the section of the NS-SU- State Border Railway.

MISSING:

• Contract for the Development of the Conceptual Design with the Justification Study for the section of the NS-SU-State Border (Kelebija) Railway, No 340-01-00493/2017-04, dated 20 October 2017, between the Republic of Serbia, the Institute of Transportation CIP, and the Serbian Railways Infrastructure JSC.
• Preliminary Contract for the development of the Feasibility Study for the modernization of the BG-SU-State Border (Kelebija) Railway, dated 14 April 2015, No 340-01-00073/2015-01, between the Republic of Serbia and the Institute of Transportation CIP.

Document 10, dated 6 August 2020

REPORT on the professional review of the Justification Study and the Conceptual Design (CD)

MISSING:

• Location conditions dated 6 April 2020.

Document 54, dated 12 September 2022

Report of professional supervision on the review of the Construction Design 2/9.1.1.1 – static calculation – Version 3 of the Detailed Design (DD).

Document 56, dated 12 September 2022

Report of professional supervision on the review of the Construction Design 2/9.1.1.1. – reinforcement and steel details – Version 3 of the Detailed Design (DD).

MISSING:

• Versions 1, 2, and 3 of the Detailed Design for the Construction Design.

Document 57, dated 12 October 2023

Report of professional supervision on the review of the Architectural Design – Detailed Design (DD) – Version 4

MISSING:

• Versions 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the Detailed Design for the Construction Design.

Document 36, dated 28 February 2024

Draft Decision of the engineer regarding additional works based on the instructions from the Financier/Client, to be the subject of Annex 4.

MISSING:

• Annex to the Draft Decision of the engineer.
• Engineer’s decisions regarding additional works or offers for additional works to be the subject of Annex 1.
• Annex 1
• Offer for additional works to be the subject of Annex 2
• Annex 2
• Offer for additional works to be the subject of Annex 3
• Annex 3

Document 38, dated 8 March 2024

Review of the Proposal for the Decision on the Acceptance and Signing of Annex 4 to the Commercial Contract dated 7 July 2018.

MISSING:

• Engineer’s Decision dated 25 October 2022, engineer’s Decision dated 3 October 2022, engineer’s Decision dated 8 March 2024.
• Draft of Annex 4 with a price table.

IN ACCORDANCE WITH:

• The Rulebook on the Content and Method of Conducting Professional Supervision (Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, Nos 22/2015 and 24/2017).
• The Special Building Usance (Official Gazette of the SFRY, No 18/77).

MISSING:

• Construction Logbook
• Construction Record Book
• Inspection Book
• Minutes of Handover OF the WORKSITE to the Contractor
• Minutes of Work Handover and Final Settlement Report
• Certificates OF Installed Materials

We emphasize that the purpose of this demand is not only to make the documentation available to the public but also to encourage the Prosecutor’s Office to review it within the scope of its functioning system and subsequently take actions provided for by law.

Due to the inactivity of the Ministry of the Interior (MoI) regarding this demand, the Dean of the Faculty of Dramatic Arts (FDA), Full Professor, filed a criminal complaint with the Third Basic Public Prosecutor’s Office on behalf of the Faculty on 2 December 2024. The criminal complaint concerns individuals reasonably suspected of physically assaulting students and professors of the Faculty on 22 November 2024, committing the criminal offense of Violent Behavior and Violent Behavior at a Public Gathering or Sporting Event.

The identified individuals, as determined by the Higher Public Prosecutor’s Office in Belgrade, are:

1. Milija Koldžić
2. Aleksandar Jokić
3. Dušan Kostić
4. Milena Aleksić
5. Ivan Stanišić

This demand applies not only to the aforementioned individuals but also to any future individuals who physically assault students, professors, or any other persons participating in peaceful civil gatherings.

According to publicly available information, this demand is also extended to individuals whose identities have not yet been confirmed by the competent authorities but are suspected to be:

1. Tatjana Makević Nikolić
2. Dražen Đurđić, President of the Municipality of Sremski Karlovci
3. Miljan Vračarević
4. Predrag Veselinović
5. Mladen Radenković, Head of the Public Order and Peace Department, Belgrade Police Directorate
6. Aleksandar Čavić, Member of the City Assembly of Belgrade
7. Petar Čavić
8. Gavrilo Kovačević, President of the Zemun City Municipality
9. Dejan Paunović, Commissioner of the Rakovica Municipal Board
10. Igor Đogić
11. Vesna Čingelić, Member of the Rakovica Municipal Council
12. Đoko Nenadić
13. Stefan Pantelić Stefanović, Member of the New Belgrade City Municipality Council
14. Luka Roganović

In addition to initiating criminal proceedings against individuals who physically assaulted professors and students, and for whom this is to be confirmed, if it transpires that these individuals are public officials, in accordance with Article 2, paragraph 1, 3-4 of the Law on Prevention of Corruption and Article 112, paragraph 3 of the Criminal Code, we simultaneously demand their dismissal from office.

In the previous period, government representatives stated that all participants in the civil protests had been released. However, this is not considered fulfillment of the demand.

The reason behind this is that release from detention does not guarantee that these individuals will not be criminally prosecuted or that a conviction will not be rendered against them. In line with this, we demand that criminal charges against all students and professors who participated in civil protests be dismissed, and if criminal proceedings are ongoing, they should be suspended.

The allocations for higher education provided for by the Budget Law of the Republic of Serbia for 2025 from the sources of General Budget Revenues and Income amount to 60.15 billion dinars. The allocations for higher education include items from the budget for Higher and University Education (Chapter 26.4), Student Standard (Chapter 26.5), and the Criminal Police University (Chapter 15.1).

The students have every right to demand an increase of 20% in the aforementioned funds (i.e., an increase of approximately 12.03 billion dinars, or 102.8 million euros), which would bring the level of investment in higher education closer to that of Central and Eastern European countries (1.71% of GDP, according to OECD methodology).

Why was the demand not fulfilled?

A 20% increase in “material costs was announced, which would lead to an overall budget increase of only 4% (i.e., 22 million euros). “Material costs,” therefore, refer only to a segment of the budget for Higher and University Education.

Instead of the requested improvement in the quality of higher education, part of the public has been misled into believing that the demand has been met.

Justification of the demand

The availability, accessibility, and quality of higher education are the standards of a progressive society, and its financing must not be questioned. The state is obliged to provide conditions in which higher education is a choice available to everyone, with a quality that is competitive on global university rankings. Shifting the financial burden from students to the budgetary income would significantly ease the conditions of studying at all levels, enabling greater participation of financially disadvantaged groups in higher education.

Therefore, we demand the introduction of a new funding mechanism that, following amendments and supplements to the Law on Higher Education, would provide faculties with funds equivalent to 50% of the total value of ECTS points that students would otherwise pay. This would increase the funding for higher education without changing the actual cost of ECTS points (set by the faculties), and students would pay 50% lower tuition fees than the full amount. We consider this the first step toward free education. Furthermore, we demand that the remaining funds be evenly distributed between other budget categories, including Student Standards and Higher and University Education, excluding salaries and other employee income.

We also note that the limited capacity of faculties to engage in scientific research hinders society in terms of technological and economic potential, while insufficient funding for research leads to the devaluation of the professional workforce and encourages their emigration from the country.

For all the reasons stated above, we demand that the Government, based on Article 123, paragraph 4 of the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia and Article 150, paragraph 1 in conjunction with Article 171 of the Rules of Procedure of the National Assembly, submit to the National Assembly a Proposal for Amendments and Supplements to the Budget Law of the Republic of Serbia for 2025, in order to increase the budget for higher education by 12.03 billion dinars. Additionally, we demand the amendments and supplements to the Law on Higher Education, which would oblige the state to contribute 50% of the total value of ECTS points. We consider the demands to be met when the National Assembly finally adopts the submitted Proposal in its original form, with the requested amendments and supplements to the Law on Higher Education. We remind you that in accordance with Article 106 of the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia, an extraordinary session can be convened, which would lead to the prompt unblocking of universities, provided that the first three demands have been met. By fulfilling these demands, the total allocation for higher education would amount to 110.55 billion dinars, and the share of spending on higher education in Serbia would thus reach 1.11% of the GDP, which we consider the minimum acceptable level of investment in future budget laws.