In the past few days, the news about the accident caused by the GRAS tram surpassed one another. And in that mass of information and in the days of waiting for the concrete, surely only one piece of news gathered us all around the same feeling, and that was the feeling of joy when we heard from Professor Gavrankapetanović from the General Hospital in Sarajevo that the injured girl had come out of the crisis.
And then we found out there was no video of the tram that killed the young man. So that the GRAS driver hid the new accident near the Tsareva bridge. They said – he was drugged and does not have a valid driver’s license. And that’s why there are youth protests. Just as there were criminal charges against 47 persons from GRAS. The question is what happened to the applications.
And how is it that after decades of abuse, the judicial system did not put an end to crime? If you dig into the archive like we did, collect old and new facts, you will get a story about masses of investigations of a strange end.
The investigation into the fatal tram accident in Sarajevo has been further complicated after the Sarajevo Canton Prosecutor’s Office confirmed that the video surveillance system inside tram number 516 had not been functioning for three months prior to the tragedy.
According to the Prosecutor’s Office, the server intended to store footage from the tram’s onboard cameras was not operational, leaving investigators without what could have been a crucial piece of evidence. The absence of video material significantly limits the ability to reconstruct the exact sequence of events.
ElmIr Plećan, defense attorney for the tram driver, stressed that data recorded inside the vehicle should have been automatically transferred to servers located in the traffic management center.
“I want to note that the data in the tram should have been forwarded to the servers in the traffic management center. According to my knowledge, there must have been some kind of backup of that information, that is, video recordings,” Plećan said.
He added that the failure of the surveillance system would complicate efforts to establish the full truth and expressed his expectation that the investigation would be expanded to include those responsible for maintaining the video system.
“This will contribute to the difficulty of the investigation and to the difficulty of establishing the real truth in this case,” Plećan said.
The company BS Telecom, which installed the video surveillance system, stated that it was not responsible for maintaining it. This has raised additional questions about who within GRAS was tasked with overseeing and servicing the system.
Journalists from BIRN and its investigative outlet Detektor have uncovered information that could indicate irregularities in GRAS’s procurement practices, particularly concerning vehicle maintenance.
Nermina Kulogija Zolj of BIRN said that one investigation revealed a tender awarded to a company that allegedly lacked professional experience and did not provide guarantees, which GRAS reportedly did not request. The company itself stated that it had not serviced a single brake in eight months, despite contracts indicating that GRAS had twice requested the servicing of ten brakes.
In a separate case, journalists found that a firm established only a year and a half before the tender was awarded a contract for engine servicing, although it primarily dealt with office supply procurement.
“These two cases indicate that we should have been more careful for the sake of passengers, because there could have been major consequences,” Kulogija Zolj said.
Journalist Borka Rudić emphasized that systemic negligence toward public enterprises has persisted for years, warning that questionable practices have long been tolerated and financed through public funds without thorough analysis of how city companies operate.
The case has also drawn attention to broader oversight failures within the public transport system, including the revelation that a tram driver allegedly operated vehicles carrying up to one hundred passengers without holding a valid driving license for three years.
As the investigation continues, mounting questions remain about institutional responsibility, supervision failures, and whether accountability will extend beyond those initially implicated.
