In the past three years the citizens of Zemun have been unsuccessfully trying to return the City Hall (18th century) taken by the Serbian Radical Party in 1998 to the Municipality. In 2003, The Fourth Municipal Court and the District Court in Belgrade, ruled the eviction of SRP from the priceless building, but the tenant did not acknowledge the Court. Many disgraced themselves in the “City Hall affair”. In the first place Home Office.

Mr. Dusan Mihajlovic, to whom no one trusted, and Mr. Dragan Jocic, in the legalistic Government – each failed to secure police assistance on two occasions, which is why rulings on eviction remained empty words. The fall of the former regime in 2000 did not confuse the SR Party. On 6 October they made an annex to the contract pursuant to which the City Hall courtyard was sold and 50 illegal buildings were erected.

The furniture of the Zemun Municipality (worth 3,7 million dinars), formerly given to “Poslovni prostor”, was donated to SRP on 6 October by an annex of the contract. The Prosecutor’s office took no actions regarding the criminal charge, in fear of Seselj. In December 2003, hopes of the return of the old authority arose. SRP turned to the Supreme Court requesting the revision of the ruling on evictions. In few days, the Supreme Court ruled the revision valid. The Court received 73 demands (from SRP, and some of the professors from the Faculty of Law), included them into the case (!) and returned them to the Court of First Instance. This does not represent a pressure on the Court, but gallows for the disobedient judges.

The ruling was pronounced by the Panel – President Mr. Predrag Trifunovic, and members Ms Jasminka Stanojevic, Ms Vesna Popovic, Ms Mirjana Grubic and Ms Branislava Apostolovic. They have interpreted the Law on criminal proceedings at their own discretion, which is why the question arises whether one cultural welfare and whole town are being framed. The Law is restrictive regarding the revision. One of the terms is a lawsuit rate which is to be determined at the preparatory hearing, or, should it not been held, at the beginning of the main dispute. The Court failed to do this, although it was obligated. The prosecutor himself did not stipulate the lawsuit rate in the charge. The Court decided that the revision was good in law, although it was not determined whether the revision was permitted.

Judge Trifunovic even states (“Danas” , 4 June) that “ lawsuit rate is determined in the charge”, which is not true. With lack of conviction the Supreme Court also denies the rulings stating that City Hall, a cultural welfare, is not used in a proper manner. According to the Supreme Court, political party may perform publishing activities, which implicates the connection with the culture. There are still no answers to the petition submitted with the Supreme Court Board on 21 May. The corruption in the judiciary represents the major problem and a taboo subject in Serbia. Instead of independent judiciary, we still have judiciary independent from the anti-corruption struggle only, judiciary hiding behind the phrases of independence in order to remain corrupted, ruling in a manner which prohibits the very idea of anti-corruption in the judiciary. The principle of the legal validity as a foundation of legal security turned our judiciary into a rule for the protection of the corrupted judges.

Ms Verica Barac,
President of the Council