Basic Court hearing record P2.1435/24 — 6 February 2025

Complete translation of all three pages of the court record supplied by the author. The former lawyer’s identity is redacted. Public searchable redacted PDF.

The source records a non-public hearing from 09:00 to 09:25, presided over by Bojana Vujić. The plaintiff’s and the CSR representative’s statements are reproduced below as recorded, followed by the panel’s ruling. Editorial clarification and the author’s later account appear separately at the end.

Source page 1 — Full translation

P2.1435/24

RECORD OF THE MAIN HEARING

Drawn up on 6 February 2025, before the Basic Court in Novi Sad.

Presiding judge: Bojana Vujić

Plaintiff: PETROVIĆ MILAN

Panel members — lay judges: Jovica Miličević; Dragana Nalić

Defendant: CSR NOVI SAD

Recording clerk: Tatjana Nikolić

Subject of the dispute: other

Commencement at 09:00. The hearing is not public.

The presiding judge opens the main hearing, announces the matter to be heard and establishes that the following have attended:

For the plaintiff: in person; lawyer [redacted] has not appeared. She refused receipt of the documents because she no longer represents the plaintiff following revocation of the power of attorney.

For the defendant: law graduate Maja Petrović, from the Centre for Social Work of the City of Novi Sad.

Of the other persons summoned, the following have not attended: [blank field].

*) In proceedings concerning small claims, this record, in addition to the information under Article 118, paragraph 1, should contain:

1. Statements concerning the parties of greater significance, particularly those by which the claim is admitted in whole or in part, the claim or an appeal is waived, or the action is amended or withdrawn;
2. The essential content of the evidence taken;
3. Decisions against which an appeal is permitted and which were announced at the main hearing;
4. Whether the parties were present when the judgment was announced and, if present, whether they were instructed under what conditions they could lodge an appeal.

To enter the necessary information in the record in accordance with the Civil Procedure Act and court practice, use the following blank pages of the record. If these are insufficient, add loose sheets as [the source ends with the incomplete word “прило”; its missing ending is not supplied here].

Source page 2 — Full translation

In view of the change in the composition of the panel,

THE PANEL MAKES THE FOLLOWING RULING

The proceedings are renewed by reading the case file. The case file is read.

It is recorded that there are no objections to what has been read.

It is recorded that lawyer [redacted] from Novi Sad has not appeared at the hearing. She refused receipt of the summons because she no longer represents the plaintiff following revocation of the power of attorney.

It is recorded that the plaintiff informs the court that he will act on his own in the proceedings and will not engage professional legal assistance.

The plaintiff states that he maintains the action and the claim as formulated. He proposes that, in the further course of the proceedings, he be examined as a party to the litigation and that the enclosed written documentation be examined, and proposes to the opposing party “a settlement, which is very reasonable”. For that purpose, he proposes that they be granted 30 days to reach a settlement.

Furthermore, my ultimate objective is to initiate proceedings to establish paternity before the competent court in Kragujevac. I cannot initiate those proceedings until these proceedings are concluded, because under the Act of 1976 a fully adopted child is not permitted to initiate those proceedings. I request 30 days within which I will state in writing whether I maintain the witnesses I have proposed. I maintain my request for exemption from court fees. I am not registered with the National Service. I request 60 days within which I will submit evidence of whether I am employed or unemployed.

The defendant’s representative opposes the action and the claim as formulated on the grounds that the adoption ruling was issued as long ago as 1976, under the then applicable Adoption Act of the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina, and was issued by the Self-Managing Community of Interest for Social Protection Novi Sad on 21 June 1979. I request 30 days to familiarize myself with the content of that Act, which I must obtain from the library of the Provincial Secretariat for Social Protection, Demography and Gender Equality.

As regards the proposed evidence, I do not object to examination of the plaintiff as a party to the litigation or to examination of the enclosed written documentation. However, I object to the witnesses proposed in the action and do not understand in what sense a settlement is proposed. As far as I have seen, the plaintiff has already inspected the files at the Centre for Social Work three times, when the procedure conducted at the time the adoption ruling was issued back in 1976 was also explained to him.

I point out that in 2005, following the plaintiff’s approach to the Centre in that same year, the social worker handling the matter conducted a search for the plaintiff’s biological mother, Miletić Cvita. I will provide all the details of that to the court and the opposing party. Accordingly, I request 30 days to set out my position in detail on all the above. I therefore propose adjournment of the hearing. I agree that the plaintiff should be given 30 days to state whether he maintains the witnesses he has proposed.

The plaintiff states that he agrees to the opposing party’s representative being granted the requested 30 days and agrees to adjournment of the hearing.

It is recorded that the plaintiff and the defendant’s representative jointly propose adjournment and jointly agree on the next hearing date, 26 March, commencing at 10:00…

[Printed page number: 2. The sentence continues on source page 3.]

Source page 3 — Full translation

…hours. They agree that the defendant’s representative should be granted the requested 30 days. They jointly propose that the time frame for conducting the civil proceedings be set at two years, with a total of 12 hearings.

THE PANEL MAKES THE FOLLOWING RULING

A time frame of two years is set for conducting the civil proceedings. The court will hold a total of 12 hearings, at which it will take the proposed evidence and possibly other evidence, in accordance with the investigatory principle in family law.

On the joint proposal of the plaintiff and the defendant’s representative,

The hearing is adjourned.

The next hearing, likewise on the joint proposal of the plaintiff and the defendant’s representative, is scheduled for:

26 March 2025, commencing at 10:00.

The plaintiff and the defendant’s representative acknowledge this, and written summonses will therefore not be sent to them.

The defendant’s representative is granted 30 days from the announcement of the ruling to set out her position in the above sense.

The plaintiff is granted the requested 30 days to state in writing whether he maintains the witnesses he has proposed.

The plaintiff is granted the requested 60 days to submit evidence concerning his employment or unemployment.

Completed at 09:25.

Recording clerk — parties — presiding judge

[Printed page number: 3.]

Editorial source clarification

The CSR representative’s recorded statement uses both 1976 and 21 June 1979 for the adoption ruling; those conflicting dates are preserved. The quoted settlement proposal belongs to the plaintiff and specifies no terms. The two-year/12-hearing framework follows the parties’ recorded joint proposal and describes the future conduct of proceedings, while 26 March is a scheduled date. The ruling grants periods for submissions and evidence, not court-fee exemption itself. The small-claims/Article 118 passage on page 1 is preprinted form text, not a separate ruling classifying this action as a small claim.

Later author’s account — former lawyer and settlement proposal

The author states that his former lawyer refused to attend and that he does not know why the court summoned her after her representation had ended. He describes his own offer of a reasonable settlement as unexpected for those present. This is his later account. The court record separately states that the former lawyer refused receipt of the summons because the power of attorney had been revoked; it records the plaintiff’s settlement proposal in quotation marks, but does not record a reaction of surprise or specific settlement terms.