On 27 September 2017 at the appearance at court for the main hearing for my personal damage compensation P 249/2011 at the Higher Court in Novi Sad, the first appearance took place after the judge Mirela Nikolčić had taken the documentation relating this case. She is the fourth judge in this case. The previous appearance had taken place in January 2017 and the latest results provided by the court economy expert Jovan Dragaš had been published more than a year ago.

I have been a businessman from 1974. I earned my funds by hard work but not from the plundering privatizations. It is well known that I invested 30 million Euros into ATP Vojvodina company; besides the already employed 300, I employed 200 more workers and after completion of the second phase of building, 1,200 should have been working there. Although this has been the biggest domestic investment, I have not received any kind of subvention from the state which is given to the foreign investors. Instead of further developing my business, I have been involved in the court proceedings for ten years because the authorities of Novi Sad, after I had built a new intercity and international bus station as well as a specialized service, did not comply with the contract which was the foundation of the initiated investment. After that my company went bankrupt and I have been conducting the proceedings for personal damage made to me. ATP Vojvodina has also been conducting the court proceedings for the damage and I am the intervener in that case.

On 22 May 2013 at the civil case the Higher Court made the decision in the case P 249/2011 by which they ordered calculating of the amount of lawsuit by means of economic and financial expertise which was to be done by economy-financial expert Jovan Dragaš. Besides other things, his task was to calculate my personal lost profit as majority owner of ATP Vojvodina for the period from 1 March 2007 till the day of the expertise, as well the legal default interest for every presented profit from the date of maturity to the day of payment.

On 29 June 2015 the Court supplemented the decision on expertise made on 22 May 2015 by demanding mechanical expertise which was to be done by the Faculty of Mechanical Engineering in Belgrade. The Faculty filed their results and opinion on 18 August 2015.

In the third and fourth supplement, economy-financial expert Jovan Dragaš partially used the results provided by the expert team from the Faculty of Mechanical Engineering.

The same expert, Jovan Dragaš, was engaged by the Commercial Court in Novi Sad in the cases P 1327/2015 and P 191/2016 in which ATP Vojvodina is a claimant and I have the process role of an intervener. Doing the expertise based on the same circumstances (lost profit of ATP Vojvodina business activities), he calculated 20 times bigger value of the lost profit of the Service Centre EvoBus (Setra and Mercedes).

On 27 September 2017 at the hearing at the Higher Court in case P 249/2011, my lawyers provided clarification given by the expert Jovan Dragaš relating the case of the Commercial Court P 1327/2015 and P 191/2016 from 13 June 2017, and they proposed for the expert Jovan Dragaš to do the additional expertise in this case as well, using the same facts he determined in the civil cases at the Commercial Court in Novi Sad and in connection with the same expertise task as it is the one in this civil case. Having in mind that a year has passed from the last statement given by the expert, taking in account the expertise task given on 22 May 2013 and the fact that the damage is to be calculated on the day of expertise, having in mind that the damage is defined on the day of the decision making (Article189, Paragraph 2 LOR), I, as the one suffering the damage, have the right to the entire damage, so that the material situation of myself as the damaged party can result in a situation as if there were not the wrongful act of the defender according to the Article 190 of LOR.

Without any explanation the judge, Mirela Nikolčić, refused to accept the suggestion!

By refusing the proposed evidence, the judge Mirela Nikolčić prevented me as a claimant to prove the material truth, thus showing her obvious bias. This irregularity cannot be corrected in the complaint procedure because there are not new facts and evidence in the complaint procedure.

It is obvious that the damage is significantly bigger than defined by the expert Jovan Dragaš in the so far completed part of the procedure, because the same person confirmed that fact in the second civil case. By refusing my evidence proposal, the judge Mirela Nikolčić has clear intention to prevent me from proving the relevant facts so that the facts in this procedure cannot be properly defined. It can clearly be seen from the fact that the judge Mirela Nikolčić did not even have a look of the results obtained by the expert Jovan Dragaš which my authorized lawyers filed.

In this way, the judge Mirela Nikolčić clearly shows that she does not care for the material truth.

I have informed the European Commission, European Parliament, Anti-corruption Agency and other institutions about the entire situation in this case.

Having in mind the situation which is fairly shaken in the current justice system, I demand providing conditions for legal and fair trial as well as all the rights regulated by the European Convention on Human Rights and the Constitution of Serbia to ATP Vojvodina and me, Ilija Dević.