Main hearing record P2.1435/24 — 15 October 2025

Full translation of the four supplied scanned pages. The hearing took place before the Basic Court in Novi Sad, from 10:30 to 11:35. Statements recorded as the plaintiff’s testimony retain his account, conclusions and uncertainties. They are distinct from the panel’s procedural orders. The standard form text is reproduced in full.

Source page 1 — Attendance and opening of the hearing

P2.1435/24

RECORD OF THE MAIN HEARING

Drawn up on 15 October 2025 before the Basic Court in Novi Sad.

Presiding judge: BOJANA VUJIĆ.

Members of the panel — lay judges: Vesna Rončević; Radmila Radulović Belić.

Recording clerk: TATJANA NIKOLIĆ.

Plaintiff: PETROVIĆ MILAN. Defendant: CENTRE FOR SOCIAL WORK NOVI SAD.

Subject of the dispute: [field not completed].

Beginning at 10:30. The hearing is not public.

The presiding judge opens the main hearing, announces the subject to be discussed and establishes that the following have appeared:

For the plaintiff: in person.

For the defendant: representative Čolak Branislav, law graduate of the Centre for Social Work, whose power of attorney is submitted to the case file.

Other summoned persons who have not appeared: [field not completed].

Printed standard form instructions

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

1. Statements concerning the parties of greater significance, particularly those by which the claim is admitted in full or in part, or the claim or appeal is waived, or the action is amended or withdrawn;
2. The essential substance of the evidence taken;
3. Decisions against which an appeal is permitted and which were pronounced at the main hearing;
4. Whether the parties were present at the pronouncement of the judgment and, if present, whether they were instructed on the conditions under which they may appeal.

To enter the necessary information in the record according to the Civil Procedure Act and court practice, use the following blank pages of the record; if these are insufficient, add separate sheets as annexes.

Source page 2 — Renewal of proceedings and the plaintiff’s examination

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

ORDER

The proceedings are renewed by reading the case file. The file is read. It is recorded that there are no objections to what was read.

The plaintiff states that he maintains the action and the claim as formulated. He proposes that the court examine him at today’s hearing.

The defendant’s representative states that he contests the action and the claim on all grounds presented so far. He agrees that the plaintiff be examined at today’s hearing.

The panel makes the following

ORDER

Evidence shall be taken by examining the plaintiff.

The plaintiff PETROVIĆ MILAN, from Kragujevac, aged 51, a mechanical fitter and flat-rate sole proprietor, “Milan Petrović PR HeritEon”, appears before the court. Duly warned of his duty to tell the truth, he states:

“I was born on 28 June 1974 in Novi Sad to my mother, Miletić Cvita. I was born from the extramarital relationship between my mother Cvita and the now deceased Pavle Lakatoš. The extract from the birth register records my name and surname as Milivoj Miletić [source spelling: ‘Миливој’]; my mother’s surname was entered. My now deceased father Pavle’s name was not entered at birth. He is my biological father, because my mother, who worked seasonally for him, and he were in an extramarital relationship. In fact, everyone knew that my mother Cvita and he were in an extramarital relationship and that I was his extramarital son.

“When I was born, I lived on a farmstead in Detelinara. That farmstead belonged to Pavle, whom I assert to be my father. I lived with the late Pavle, whom I assert to be my father, until his death on 7 November 1978 in Bački Vinogradi. I could not say until when my late mother Cvita, who died on 15 June 1997 in Melenci, lived with us. I have vague memories about that. I saw her several times during childhood, and never again afterwards.

“After my now deceased father Pavle’s death, I was cared for by his parents, the late Ištvan Lakatoš and the grandmother whose name I do not remember, as she was his second wife. My father Pavle Lakatoš had four children from his marriage to Veronika, whose official name I think was Vera Terezija: Tibor, who is deceased and drowned at eighteen months; Roža, who is still alive and was born in 1955; then his daughter Iren, born in 1957, who is also alive and lives in Budapest; and his son Ištvan, known as Pišta, born in 1962, who is under Roža’s guardianship, I do not know why.

“The court records from the divorce proceedings between the late Veronika and the late Pavle show that my half-sister Roža knew I was their half-brother and gave a statement to that effect in the divorce file. I have already said that my father Pavle died on 7 November 1978 in Bački Vinogradi, that probate proceedings followed his death, and that in those probate proceedings my sister Roža was represented by Helena Uzelac. To everyone’s surprise, Helena Uzelac stated in those proceedings that, besides the deceased’s children Roža, Iren and Ištvan, there was another child — namely me, Milivoj Miletić [source: ‘Миливој’] — but that the child had not been registered with his father’s name, although the deceased, Pavle Lakatoš, had acknowledged him through statements during

Source page 3 — Probate, adoption, childhood and foster care

“the divorce proceedings with his wife Veronika. After attorney Helena Uzelac stated that, the heirs revoked her power of attorney and engaged another attorney, Jovan Pervaz. By the inheritance decision issued on 26 November 1979, his daughter Roža, his daughter Iren, his son Ištvan and I were designated as heirs of the late Pavle. An appeal was lodged against that inheritance decision; on appeal the decision was set aside, and in the renewed probate proceedings only the deceased’s daughter Roža, his daughter Iren and his son Ištvan were designated as heirs.

“After that, I do not know on what basis the Centre for Social Work in Novi Sad obtained authority over me. I asked the Centre to provide me with that documentation, but they did not provide it — how I came under their authority. On 20 June 1979, the Centre for Social Work Novi Sad appointed social worker Vera Radovanović as my guardian [source wording: ‘prigodnog staraoca’]. On 20 June of that same year, that same social worker Vera Radovanović participated in the proceedings for my full adoption, which I consider a conflict of interest, because I consider that she could not participate in those proceedings as my guardian [source: ‘prigodni staralac’].

“I assert that the full adoption proceedings conducted by the Centre for Social Work were conducted very quickly. I have no evidence for this, but I think the full adoption proceedings were conducted quickly so that I would not turn five, because, if I turned five, full adoption could not be established under the regulations then in force. What I would particularly point out is that the court conducting probate proceedings after my late father Pavle ordered the Centre for Social Work in Novi Sad on 20 July 1979 to protect my interests in those probate proceedings, not to give me up for adoption.

“On 21 June 1979, the Centre for Social Work Novi Sad issued a decision on full adoption, bypassing the standard procedures for adapting the adoptee to the adoptive parents. Vasić Milorad and his wife Vasić Gospava were designated as full adoptive parents. I made an analysis of the psychologist’s, social worker’s and educator’s reports; those reports contradict each other, for example by stating different educational attainments of the adoptive parents. The psychologist, for example, established that the adoptive mother was illiterate. More precisely, during the nine days in which the procedure was conducted, they did not establish at all whether Gospava and Milorad were suitable to become my full adoptive parents. They were completely dysfunctional. He was nine years younger than Gospava, in his prime, and unfaithful to her; my life with them was filled with violence.

“I lived with them from 21 June 1979 until Milorad ran away with the immediate neighbour next to their house — I think this was late in 1981 — when I remained living only with Gospava. From that time she began showing psychological problems, and I lived with her until her death in April 1983. After her death, her sister took me in; I do not even know for certain whether she was her biological sister, Darinka Sinaji. I lived with her for about two months, when Milorad took me in. I lived with him until 31 August 1983, when he brought me to the Centre for Social Work in Novi Sad, which then placed me with the Tutlić foster family in Irig. I was there until 1 December 1983 and performed the hardest work there.

“From that family I moved, through the same social worker Vera Radovanović, to another foster family, with Jelena Molnar, where I stayed for nine months. I can say that Jelena was wonderful. Afterwards social worker Vera Radovanović came to her again and told Jelena that adoption proceedings were being conducted for me and that I absolutely must not say that I had already been fully adopted by Milorad and Gospava.

“I was adopted — this was a partial adoption — by Periša and Gorgina Petrović [name as printed] from Kragujevac, with whom I lived from 1984, when the decision on incomplete adoption was issued, until their deaths. What I would particularly stress is that, during the adoption proceedings, they were told that Gospava and Milorad Vasić were my biological parents. I would draw attention to the fact that my biological mother Cvita is Croatian, and my late father Pavle is Hungarian, and that Periša asked

Source page 4 — Completion of testimony and procedural order

“when the adoption was established what my nationality was, and social worker Vera Radovanović told him ‘Serbian’. I consider that the entire process of my full adoption was conducted unlawfully by the Centre for Social Work in Novi Sad, and that is why I request that the full adoption procedure be annulled. At today’s hearing I am also submitting, for the court and the opposing party, my detailed written statement dated 15 October 2025, in which I set everything out in detail. That is all I have to say.”

It is recorded that the plaintiff’s written statement bearing the date 15 October 2025 is placed in the file, and a copy is handed directly to the defendant’s representative.

The defendant’s representative has no questions and no objections.

The plaintiff asks the court to adjourn today’s hearing because he is exhausted, having written the statement he submitted today during the previous night, and to give him fifteen days to state in writing whether he has any further proposals for evidence.

The plaintiff’s representative [wording printed in the source] states that he agrees to the adjournment at the plaintiff’s request for the reasons given. He agrees that the plaintiff be given fifteen days to state in writing whether he has any proposals for evidence. He states that the defendant has no further proposals for evidence, that they have submitted to the court all the evidence they had, apart from examination of the attached written documentation.

It is recorded that the plaintiff and the defendant’s representative agree on the date of the next hearing, 26 November at 10:30.

The panel makes the following

ORDER

At the joint proposal of the plaintiff and the defendant’s representative, the hearing is adjourned and the next hearing is scheduled for:

26 November 2025 at 10:30.

The plaintiff and the defendant’s representative present take note of this, so no written summons will be sent to them.

The plaintiff is granted the requested period of fifteen days from the pronouncement of the order to state in writing his further proposals for evidence.

Completed at 11:35.

Recording clerk — Parties — Presiding judge.

Editorial note — wording of the supplied record

The printed small-claims instructions are standard form text, not a decision classifying this case as a small claim. The source’s dates 26 November 1979 and 20 June 1979, the term ‘prigodni’, the spelling ‘Gorgina’ and the page-4 phrase ‘plaintiff’s representative’ are preserved. The attendance section identifies the plaintiff as appearing in person and Čolak as the defendant’s representative. Comparison with earlier documents belongs in separate annotations; the testimony has not been rewritten to remove these differences.

Author’s later account — separate from the court record

According to the author, at the hearing before Bojana Vujić he spent about an hour struggling to prevent his words from being distorted when dictated into the record. He is unsure how much he succeeded in preserving. Exhausted, he asked to continue in writing; the judge agreed. He says he had also prepared a written statement which was added to the file without the attention he expected.

The author recalls having the impression that the judge considered her work done when she accepted a written continuation. That is his perception of the encounter, not a documented statement of the judge’s intentions. His account is preserved alongside the court record, which confirms receipt of the written statement and the period for further evidence proposals.