Hearing of 26 March 2025 — “how he came under their jurisdiction”, P2.1435/24
Source and reading notes
Full translation of the three-page Basic Court hearing record dated 26 March 2025, case P2.1435/24. The non-public hearing runs from 10:00 to 10:30. Bojana Vujić presides; the plaintiff attends personally and Maja Petrović appears for the defendant Centre for Social Work.
Page 2 nevertheless says that the defendant’s submission is handed to the “plaintiff’s representative”. That wording is preserved alongside page 1’s personal-appearance entry. The printed small-claims instructions and Article 118 on page 1 belong to the form; they are not a new ruling that this claim is a small-claims case. A clipped, rotated printed fragment is visible in the upper-right margin of page 2; its missing text and origin are not supplied.
The record distinguishes the plaintiff’s request for records explaining “how he came under their jurisdiction”, the CSR representative’s opposition to supplying pre-adoption family-law-protection files, and the panel’s final order concerning documentation of the adoption. The parties’ statements and the court’s orders are translated separately below. The next hearing is scheduled for 5 June 2025; this record does not establish that it was held.
Source page 1
P2. 1435/24
RECORD OF THE MAIN HEARING
Drawn up on 26.03.2025 before the Basic Court in Novi Sad.
Presiding judge: Bojana Vujić
Panel members — lay judges: Cicmil Zoran; Maravić Mirjana
Recording clerk: Tatjana Nikolić
Plaintiff: PETROVIĆ MILAN
Defendant: CENTRE FOR SOCIAL WORK
Subject of dispute: [field unfilled]
Start at 10:00. The hearing is non-public.
The presiding judge opens the main hearing, announces the subject for consideration and establishes that the following have attended:
For the plaintiff: in person.
For the defendant: representative, law graduate Maja Petrović.
Other summoned persons who have not attended: [field unfilled]
Printed form instructions
*) In small-claims proceedings, this record, besides the information under Article 118, paragraph 1, must contain:
- Statements concerning the parties of greater significance, particularly those by which the claim is wholly or partly admitted, the claim or an appeal is waived, or the action is amended or withdrawn;
- The essential content of the evidence taken;
- Decisions against which an appeal is allowed and which were announced at the main hearing;
- Whether the parties were present when the judgment was announced and, if present, whether they were instructed under what conditions they may lodge an appeal.
For entering 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 attachments.
Source page 2
In view of the change in the composition of the panel,
the panel makes the following
ORDER
The proceedings are resumed by reading the case file. The file is read.
It is recorded that there are no objections to what has been read.
It is recorded that the defendant’s submission dated 10.03.2025 is handed directly to the plaintiff’s representative.
The plaintiff states that he maintains his action and the claim made, and his evidentiary proposal that the witness Vinka Ignjatić of Budisava, Petefi Šandora 168, and her son Dragan Ignjatić be examined in these proceedings. They were neighbours of the late adopters Gospava and Milorad Vasić and are acquainted with the fact that their marriage was dysfunctional even before the full adoption. He maintains his proposal to be examined as a party. He maintains his evidentiary proposal to inspect the Higher Court record already attached to the file, from the hearing in the divorce litigation of his adopters Gospava and Milorad. He maintains the proposal to request inspection of the file in which the marriage was dissolved, P.1106/82. He withdraws his evidentiary proposal to obtain officially from the Budisava Health Centre the medical record and medical history of his late adoptive mother Gospava Vasić. He proposes that the defendant be ordered to supply the documentation explaining how he “came under their jurisdiction”. These are his evidentiary proposals. He particularly emphasizes that, although at the previous hearing the court gave him the period he himself requested — 30 days to state whether he maintained the proposed witnesses or not — he did not properly understand what he was required to do. He therefore identified only Vinka Ignjatić of Budisava as a witness in his submission dated 10.03.2025, and at today’s hearing has stated that he also maintains the other proposed witnesses.
The defendant’s representative states that she opposes the action and the claim in their entirety because the statutory conditions for annulment of the full adoption applicable when it was concluded are not fulfilled. She requests an additional period of 15 days, during which I will provide a detailed written statement and supply the Adoption Act of SAP Vojvodina containing the provisions. At today’s hearing I submit the social worker’s report in the search procedure for Cvita Miletić, dated 09.03.2005. I oppose the evidentiary proposals to examine all the proposed witnesses about the dysfunctional marriage of the adopters Gospava and Milorad Vasić, since this is not a ground for annulment of the full adoption and such testimony by the proposed witnesses is questionable because of their indirect knowledge of the family circumstances. I agree that the plaintiff should be examined as a party and that the attached written documentation should be inspected, and I request 15 days to provide a detailed written statement and supply the then applicable Adoption Act of SAP Vojvodina which applied at the time of this plaintiff’s full adoption. She also opposes officially requesting inspection of the divorce litigation between the late adopters Gospava and Milorad Vasić, because it and the statements contained therein are not relevant to these proceedings for annulment of the full adoption, since the grounds for annulment must exist at the time the full adoption was established.
It is recorded that a photocopy of the social worker’s report in the search procedure for Cvita Miletić dated 09.03.2005 is placed in the file and a copy handed directly to the plaintiff, although he states that he possesses that record.
[Printed page number: 2]
[Clipped, rotated printed fragment in the upper-right margin: “Тужи… / 15 дана д… / али ће / сле…”. The missing wording is not reconstructed.]
Source page 3
The plaintiff states that he agrees that the defendant’s representative be granted the requested 15 days to provide a detailed written statement and the Adoption Act of SAP Vojvodina, but that he will supply it himself as well. He proposes that the court adjourn the hearing and examine him at the next hearing. He agrees that his proposal to examine the above witnesses should be decided after his own examination. He proposes that the defendant be ordered to supply all documentation concerning his adoption by the adopters Gospava and Milorad Vasić.
Responding to the foregoing, the defendant’s representative states that, concerning the complete documentation of his adoption by Gospava and Milorad Vasić and requiring the defendant to supply it, we do not oppose supplying files concerning the establishment of the full adoption, but we oppose supplying files involving the application of family-law-protection measures before the full adoption was established, or, as the plaintiff requested, supplying “how he came under our jurisdiction”, because this would burden the proceedings in question and the relevance of such files to these proceedings is in question.
It is recorded that the plaintiff and the defendant’s representative jointly agree on the next hearing date, 5 June at 10:00.
The panel makes the following
ORDER
The hearing is adjourned.
On the joint proposal of the plaintiff and the defendant’s representative, the next hearing is scheduled for:
05.06.2025, starting at 10:00.
The plaintiff and the defendant’s representative, who are present, take note of this; written summonses will therefore not be sent to them.
The plaintiff is warned of the consequences of failing to answer the summons, since he will be examined at the hearing under the threat of being passed over.
The defendant’s representative is required, within 15 days from announcement of the order, to provide a detailed written statement and submit the relevant evidence as stated above, and within the same period to supply all documentation held by the defendant concerning the plaintiff’s adoption by the adopters, now deceased, Gospava and Milorad Vasić.
Completed at 10:30.
Recording clerk — Parties — Presiding judge
Later author’s clarification
The author states: “I already had the same Act and had been offering it to the court throughout.” He also believes that a copy of the Act accompanied his claim as an attachment. This later clarification accompanies the 26 March record’s separate entry that he would also supply the Act himself, while the CSR representative requests another period to provide it.
Comments on source passages (16)
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
The CSR had acknowledged the settlement email before this hearing
The 3 March email thread records CSR receipt of the author’s detailed settlement proposal at 08:30 CET. This hearing took place on 26 March, when Maja Petrović again opposed the claim and sought more time for the statute and written position. The hearing record does not mention the settlement proposal or its genetic companion. The link preserves that sequence and the actual offer. No substantive response to that offer appears in this hearing record.
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)
Maja Petrović asks for another fifteen days for the adoption law
At the 6 February hearing Maja Petrović had already requested thirty days to obtain and study the 1976 SAP Vojvodina Adoption Act. Here she again opposes annulment and requests fifteen additional days for a detailed written position and the law. The record also states that a defendant submission dated 10 March was handed over; its contents are not included in these three pages. The February record and this renewed request can be read together, alongside the recorded reference to that earlier defendant submission.
PDF p. 2
Open related document
Open timeline event
How did the child come under the CSR’s authority?
The plaintiff asks for the documentation showing how he came under the Centre’s authority. This concerns the child’s earlier protection and placement history, not merely the later adoption decision. The linked 3871/79 social file contains the April 1979 placement decision and Vera Radovanović’s earlier work notes. Her 5 April entry says the natural father had died; the 16 April placement decision describes the father as unknown. Those original records are concrete material for tracing the administrative route and its conflicting descriptions.
PDF p. 2
Open related document
Open timeline event
Proposed witness evidence concerns the marriage before adoption
The plaintiff proposes Vinka Ignjatić and her son Dragan Ignjatić as neighbours of Gospava and Milorad Vasić who knew that the marriage was dysfunctional even before full adoption. He specifies that earlier period. The June 1979 professional reports, by contrast, describe harmony, sincerity and favourable conditions for a child. The proposed testimony therefore concerns the basis of those favourable expectations, not only a marital breakdown after adoption. This record preserves the proposed subjects of testimony; the witnesses have not given that testimony here.
PDF p. 2
Open related document
Open timeline event
The plaintiff withdraws the request for Gospava’s medical history
The plaintiff expressly withdraws the request that the court obtain Gospava Vasić’s medical record and history from the Budisava health centre. He continues his divorce-file and witness proposals. This is a specific change to his evidence request at this hearing; it does not rewrite medical material already preserved in the 1982 divorce dossier. The linked dossier retains that material as a separately accessible original source.
PDF p. 2
Open related document
Open timeline event
The plaintiff explains his 10 March witness statement and retains the others
The plaintiff says he had not understood what the previous thirty-day period required and had named only Vinka Ignjatić in his own submission of 10 March. At this hearing he expressly retains the other previously proposed witnesses. The linked February record shows that the period concerned identifying witnesses and their proposed testimony. The March record also mentions a defendant submission dated 10 March; that is a different party’s document, not the plaintiff’s witness statement.
PDF p. 2
Open related document
Open timeline event
Maja Petrović opposes every proposed witness and disputes their knowledge
The CSR representative objects to hearing all proposed witnesses, arguing that a dysfunctional marriage is not a ground for annulment and that their accounts are doubtful because their knowledge of family circumstances is indirect. The plaintiff describes Vinka and Dragan as the adopters’ neighbours with knowledge extending before adoption and retains the other proposed witnesses. These are opposing evidentiary positions. The record does not turn Maja Petrović’s objection into a judicial decision excluding every witness; the plaintiff asks that the witness issue be considered after his own examination.
PDF p. 2
Open related document
Open timeline event
The 1982 divorce file is disputed as evidence of earlier family conditions
The plaintiff retains his request for the Vasić divorce file P.1106/82 and the previously supplied hearing record. Maja Petrović opposes obtaining that file, saying its statements are irrelevant because annulment grounds must have existed when the adoption was established. The linked original divorce record contains statements about the beginnings of marital conflict, non-maintenance and abandonment, which must be read with their speakers and dates. Its later creation and the time of the conditions described are separate questions; the source makes this evidentiary dispute explicit.
PDF p. 2
Open related document
Open timeline event
Ljiljana Ristić’s 2005 mother-search report is entered again
Maja Petrović supplies the social worker’s report of 9 March 2005 concerning the search for Cvita Miletić. The record says a photocopy is entered in the case file and a copy handed to the plaintiff, who says he already has it. The linked original identifies social worker Ljiljana Ristić, the actual inquiries and the recommendation to end the search. The author separately states Cvita’s death on 15 June 1997 and learning of it in 2021. Here the recorded act is renewed production of that report.
PDF p. 2
Open related document
Open timeline event
The plaintiff is to be examined; the next hearing is scheduled for 5 June
The plaintiff proposes that he be examined at the next hearing and that the witness proposal be considered after his examination. The panel chaired by Bojana Vujić schedules 5 June 2025 at 10:00, records both parties’ agreement to that date and states that written summonses will not be sent to those present. The plaintiff is warned about failure to appear because he is to be examined. This is the examination plan and scheduling order recorded on 26 March, not proof that the later hearing occurred.
PDF p. 3
Open related document
Open timeline event
Maja Petrović objects to the earlier protection history as burdensome and irrelevant
Maja Petrović accepts production of documents concerning establishment of the full adoption, but expressly opposes files about family-law protection measures before adoption, including how the plaintiff came under the Centre’s authority. Her stated reasons are that this would burden the proceedings and that their relevance is questionable. The distinction is hers: earlier protective records and the adoption file are not the same evidentiary scope. The linked original social file makes the pre-adoption placement material directly available for that comparison.
PDF p. 3
Open related document
Open timeline event
Bojana Vujić’s panel orders all adoption documentation held by the CSR within fifteen days
The panel chaired by Bojana Vujić orders the defendant’s representative to state its position in detail, provide the corresponding evidence and, within the same fifteen-day period, submit all documentation the defendant holds about the plaintiff’s adoption by Gospava and Milorad Vasić. The operative order says “about the adoption”; it does not separately name the entire earlier protective history or expressly reject its production. The later CSR submission is linked because it quotes the law and lists ten evidentiary items; these records can be compared without assuming that every listed annex was then produced.
PDF p. 3
Open related document
Open timeline event
The author already had the Act and kept offering it to the court
The author explicitly states that he already had the same Act and had been offering it to the court throughout. The 26 March record separately preserves his statement that he would also supply it himself. At the February hearing Maja Petrović requested thirty days to obtain and study the statute; on 26 March she asks for another fifteen days. The contrast is concrete: the plaintiff already has and offers the law, while the CSR representative receives time and then requests more for the same statute. This is the author’s later clarification, displayed separately from the original hearing record.
Separate later author statement after the hearing record
Open related document
Open timeline event