Hearing record P2.1435/24 — Bojana Vujić’s panel, 5 November 2024
Complete translation of both pages of the court record supplied by the author. The court text is followed by a separate editorial source note and the author’s later account concerning the summons and the end of his representation.
The record is dated 5 November 2024. It records a non-public hearing from 11:00 to 11:30, with the plaintiff present in person. The Appellate Court ruling R.22/24 of 21 August 2024 is handed to him at this hearing.
Source page 1 — Full translation
P2. 1435/24
RECORD OF THE MAIN HEARING
Drawn up on 5 November 2024
before the Basic Court in Novi Sad.
Presiding judge: Bojana Vujić
Plaintiff: PETROVIĆ MILAN
Panel members — lay judges:
Čiča Sofija
Svetlana Šilić
Defendant: CSR NOVI SAD
Court clerk: TATJANA NIKOLIĆ
Subject of the dispute: [field not completed]
Start at 11:00.
The hearing is not public.
The presiding judge opens the main hearing, announces the subject to be heard and establishes that the following have appeared:
For the plaintiff: in person.
For the defendant: no one; the defendant’s authorized representative was duly summoned by the ruling dated 16 September 2024.
Of the other summoned persons, the following have not appeared: [field not completed]
Standard form notice
*) In small-claims proceedings, in addition to the information under Article 118, paragraph 1, this record must contain:
- statements concerning the parties of greater significance, particularly those acknowledging the claim in whole or in part, waiving the claim or an appeal, or amending or withdrawing the claim;
- the essential substance of the evidence taken;
- decisions against which an appeal is permitted and which have been pronounced at the main hearing;
- whether the parties were present when the judgment was pronounced and, if present, whether they were instructed on the conditions under which they may lodge an appeal.
To enter the necessary information in the record under the Civil Procedure Act and the court’s practice, use the following blank pages of the record; if those are insufficient, add separate sheets as attachments.
Source page 2 — Full translation
It is recorded that the defendant’s authorized representative has not appeared at the hearing, having been duly summoned by the ruling dated 16 September 2024.
It is recorded that the Appellate Court in Novi Sad’s ruling R.22/24 of 21 August 2024 is handed directly to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff asks the court, given that he is a party unversed in law and wishes to seek legal assistance, to grant him a period of 30 days within which he will state his position in writing on the further course of proceedings in this legal matter.
He particularly emphasizes that, in the meantime, he has lost his job; that he will submit proof of this, in the form of an agreed termination of his employment contract; and that he asks the court to exempt him from paying court fees after that proof has been submitted.
He proposes that no hearing in the case be scheduled until his submission has been received.
The panel makes the following
RULING
The court will decide the further course of proceedings in writing, after the plaintiff’s written submission has been delivered.
The plaintiff is granted the requested period of 30 days from the day this ruling is announced to state his position in writing on the further course of proceedings in this legal matter and to submit evidence concerning exemption from court fees.
Deliver a copy of this record to the Centre for Social Work of the City of Novi Sad.
Completed at 11:30.
Court clerk — parties — presiding judge
[Printed page number: 2.]
Editorial source note
The ruling grants a 30-day period for a written submission and evidence concerning court-fee exemption; it does not itself grant that exemption. The printed instructions on page 1 concerning small claims and Article 118 are form text, not a new court decision classifying this claim as a small-claims case. The duly summoned representative described in the court text belongs to the defendant CSR.
Later author’s account — the second summons for the same hearing
The author explains that he was told that the summons for the same hearing was being sent for the second time. He does not know whether the first summons was sent to him or to his former lawyer, who had informed the court that she no longer represented him. He received the latest summons and came to the hearing alone. This is his later account; it is separate from the court record’s statement about the defendant CSR’s representative being duly summoned.
Comments on source passages (9)
Bojana Vujić — plaintiff present in person
The record names Bojana Vujić as presiding judge. Its appearance section records Milan Petrović in person at the non-public 5 November hearing, which runs from 11:00 to 11:30. This establishes his attendance in this procedural stage; his later explanation of arriving alone after representation ended is preserved separately.
PDF p. 1
Open related document
Open timeline event
ZPP — Article 118 · Reading and correcting the hearing record
The form’s printed reference to “particulars under Article 118(1)” does not match the current Act’s numbering. Those particulars are in Article 116(1), to which the current small-claims provision, Article 474, expressly refers. The printed numbering corresponds to Articles 118(1) and 473 of the 2004 Act. This is evidence of an outdated reference in the form; it does not establish that the court applied the former Act or classified this identity/adoption dispute as a small claim.
Civil Procedure Act (ZPP) · Article 118
ZPP — instruction for completing the record
This is the hearing form’s printed instruction to continue the record on blank pages and add sheets if needed. It describes how the form is to be completed; it does not establish that pages were omitted or that the hearing had no substantive content. No article is specified here.
Civil Procedure Act (ZPP)
CSR representative absent despite the recorded summons
The court records that the defendant’s authorized representative did not appear and had been duly summoned by the ruling of 16 September 2024. The representative identified here belongs to the defendant CSR. This entry concerns the CSR’s absence, not the former lawyer who had represented the plaintiff.
PDF p. 2
Open related document
Open timeline event
Appellate ruling handed to the plaintiff at the hearing
Before the panel presided over by Bojana Vujić, the record expressly states that the 21 August R.22/24 ruling is handed directly to the plaintiff on 5 November. The linked ruling was issued by the Appellate Court panel chaired by Aleksandra Pekez Kalinić and assigns jurisdiction to the Basic Court. This paragraph records handover at the hearing; it does not determine the date of any earlier delivery.
PDF p. 2
Open related document
Open timeline event
Legal assistance sought after loss of employment
The plaintiff asks for 30 days because he is unversed in law and wants to seek legal assistance. He also reports losing his job, promises evidence of an agreed termination of his employment contract and asks for court-fee exemption after supplying that evidence. The record preserves both the legal-assistance need and the financial request, rather than recording an already granted exemption.
PDF p. 2
Open related document
Open timeline event
Bojana Vujić’s panel — 30 days and a written next step
The panel presided over by Bojana Vujić grants 30 days from the announcement of the ruling for the plaintiff’s written position and evidence relevant to court-fee exemption. The court will determine the further course in writing after receiving his submission and orders a copy of the record sent to the CSR. The operative part grants the period; it does not grant fee exemption.
PDF p. 2
Open related document
Open timeline event
ZPP — Article 118 · Reading and correcting the hearing record
The form’s printed reference to “particulars under Article 118(1)” does not match the current Act’s numbering. Those particulars are in Article 116(1), to which the current small-claims provision, Article 474, expressly refers. The printed numbering corresponds to Articles 118(1) and 473 of the 2004 Act. This is evidence of an outdated reference in the form; it does not establish that the court applied the former Act or classified this identity/adoption dispute as a small claim.
Civil Procedure Act (ZPP) · Article 118
Author’s later account — second summons for the same hearing
The author says he was told the summons for the same hearing was being sent a second time. He does not know whether the first went to him or to his former lawyer, who had informed the court that she no longer represented him. He received the latest summons and attended alone. The linked 29 April package contains a separate later author’s account of self-representation from November; neither later account is part of that April court ruling.
Separate author note after the court translation
Open related document
Open timeline event