Basic Court hearing record P2.1435/24 — 26 November 2025
Full translation of the three supplied pages of the Basic Court in Novi Sad hearing record. The hearing took place on 26 November 2025, from 10:30 to 11:02. The text distinguishes the parties’ statements from the panel’s rulings. The supplied file contains the hearing record, without the medical reports mentioned in it.
Source page 1
P2.1435/24
RECORD OF THE MAIN HEARING
Drawn up on 26 November 2025
before the Basic Court in Novi Sad
Presiding judge: BOJANA VUJIĆ
Panel members — lay judges: Đurčok Milina, Danilov Dušan
Court clerk: TATJANA NIKOLIĆ
Plaintiff: PETROVIĆ MILAN
Defendant: CSR NOVI SAD
Subject matter of the dispute: [field left blank]
Starting at 10:30
The hearing is closed to the public.
The presiding judge opens the main hearing, announces the subject of the hearing and establishes that the following have appeared:
For the plaintiff: in person
For the defendant: representative Maja Petrović, law graduate, CSR
Of the other persons summoned, the following did not appear: [no entry]
Printed form instructions
*) In proceedings concerning small claims, this record, in addition to the information under Article 118, paragraph 1, must contain:
- Statements concerning the parties that are of particular importance, especially those by which the claim is admitted in whole or in part, the claim or an appeal is waived, or the action is amended or withdrawn;
- The essential content of the evidence taken;
- Decisions against which an appeal is permitted and which have been announced at the main hearing;
- Whether the parties were present when the judgment was announced and, if they were present, whether they were instructed about the conditions under which they may 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 separate sheets as annexes.
Source page 2
In view of the change in the composition of the panel,
The panel issues a RULING
The proceedings are restarted by reading the case file. The case file is read.
It is noted that there are no objections to what has been read.
The plaintiff states that he maintains the action and the claim as formulated. He maintains the proposals for evidence in point 2 of his submission of 29 October 2025. He has no proposals for evidence other than these. He proposes that the opposing party be given a short period to respond to the statements and proposals in his submission.
The defendant’s representative states that she opposes the action and the claim as formulated for all the reasons stated so far. Regarding the proposals for evidence and the statements in the submission of 29 October 2025, we request a period of 15 days, within which we will respond to it. She particularly emphasizes that, in the proceedings so far, they have submitted everything that is relevant, and that they may submit what the plaintiff proposes concerning what preceded the adoption, and I emphasize that I have already given instructions to our archive to that effect. I emphasize that we will submit our response to the plaintiff’s statements within 15 days, and, concerning the delivery of what is in our archive, we state that this is a very complex task because our archive is located in several places, particularly because the file is from 1974. We must first establish whether it is in our archive, in the city archive or in the Archive of Vojvodina. We particularly emphasize that we do not know its condition, given the conditions in which the records are kept, if they are in our archive, concerning moisture. We therefore request a period of 30 days. Regarding the plaintiff’s request for evidence concerning my absence from hearings, I submit evidence for the court and the opposing party — a specialist doctor’s report and a report on temporary incapacity for work for the period from 9 June to 5 November 2025, because I broke my heel.
It is noted that a photocopy of a report on temporary incapacity for work in the name of Petrović Maja and a photocopy of a specialist doctor’s report dated 9 June 2025 are placed in the case file, and that a copy is handed directly to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff states that he agrees that the defendant’s representative be given a period of 15 days to respond to his submission of 29 October 2025. He also agrees that the defendant be given a period of 30 days to deliver the requested evidence from its archive.
It is noted that the plaintiff and the defendant’s representative jointly propose that the hearing be adjourned, and that they agree on 9 February at 10:30 as the date and time for scheduling the next hearing.
The panel issues a RULING
On the joint proposal of the plaintiff and the defendant’s representative, the hearing is adjourned and the next hearing is scheduled for:
9 February 2026 at 10:30.
Source page 3
The plaintiff and the defendant’s representative, who are present, take notice of this, so written summonses will not be sent to them.
The defendant’s representative is given a period of 15 days from the pronouncement of the ruling to respond in writing to the defendant’s submission of 29 October 2025.
The defendant’s representative is given a period of 30 days from the pronouncement of the ruling to provide the court and the opposing party with the evidence it holds in its archive and to which the plaintiff refers.
Completed at 11:02.
Court clerk: [signature field]
Parties: [signature field]
Presiding judge: [signature field; visible pen mark]
Editorial notes on the source
- The record repeatedly gives 29 October 2025 as the date of the plaintiff’s submission. The separately supplied submission in this dossier is dated 27 October 2025. Both dates are preserved; this record does not explain the difference.
- On page 3, the ruling says “the defendant’s submission”, while the preceding passages on page 2 refer to the plaintiff’s submission. The translation preserves that wording.
- The small-claims instructions and the reference to Article 118 on page 1 are printed form text. They do not constitute a separate ruling classifying this action as a small claim.
- The rotated, clipped fragment of printed text at the upper-right edge of page 2 is incomplete and is not reconstructed as a separate statement. The supplied image preserves it.
Comments on source passages (15)
Bojana Vujić: the hearing and the new periods
This record establishes a hearing held on 26 November, from 10:30 to 11:02, before Bojana Vujić. The earlier October record had scheduled that date and allowed the plaintiff fifteen days for further written proposals. Here the court gives CSR its own fifteen-day response period and thirty days for archive evidence.
PDF p. 1
Open related document
Open timeline event
Maja Petrović appears for CSR; Čolak’s earlier authority remains a separate issue
The attendance section now names Maja Petrović, while the 15 October hearing named Branislav Čolak. The change of representative does not answer the plaintiff’s request to establish Čolak’s status and the date his authority was filed. This record contains no decision on that earlier request. It also gives no basis for treating Maja’s appearance as proof of Čolak’s earlier authority or its absence.
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)
The record says 29 October; the linked submission is dated 27 October
The plaintiff’s recorded statement and the following discussion repeatedly give 29 October 2025 as the submission date. The supplied submission itself bears 27 October. Both source dates remain visible. This hearing record does not explain whether the difference concerns receipt, posting or an error, so it must not silently become proof of a court-receipt date or replace the submission’s own date.
PDF p. 2
Open related document
Open timeline event
“Everything relevant” does not close the question of the earlier files
Maja Petrović says CSR has supplied everything relevant so far, yet also seeks time to locate further archive material requested by the plaintiff. At the October hearing CSR’s representative had said they had supplied all the evidence they had. The November record therefore shows that retrieval and delivery of the earlier files remain active issues. Neither general assurance substitutes for identifying and producing the particular records the plaintiff requests.
PDF p. 2
Open related document
Open timeline event
The 1974 files: location, custody and condition remain concrete questions
Maja Petrović says the archive is held in several places and that the 1974 file may be in CSR’s archive, the city archive or the Archive of Vojvodina. She also raises uncertainty about storage conditions and moisture. These are her recorded explanations for requesting time. The linked submission seeks the earlier records establishing how CSR acquired authority over the child; naming possible repositories is not itself production of those records or an answer to that question.
PDF p. 2
Open related document
Open timeline event
9 June in this record and the separate account of 5 June
The period stated here starts on 9 June and ends on 5 November 2025. The author’s separate account concerns his arrival at court on 5 June, four days before that recorded starting date, when he says he was told about a CSR lawyer’s broken leg. The two sources therefore have different dates and scopes. This November entry does not by itself establish the circumstances of the earlier 5 June cancellation.
PDF p. 2
Open related document
Open timeline event
26 November: copies filed and handed to the plaintiff
The court expressly records the filing of a copy of the temporary-incapacity report in Petrović Maja’s name and a copy of the specialist’s report dated 9 June 2025, with a copy handed to the plaintiff. This is a concrete procedural development after his October request for evidence concerning the earlier absence. The source establishes the recorded filing and handover on 26 November.
PDF p. 2
Open related document
Open timeline event
Agreement to fifteen and thirty days has a defined scope
The plaintiff agrees to fifteen days for CSR’s response and thirty days to deliver the requested archive evidence. The agreement recorded here concerns those periods. It does not say that he withdraws his evidence proposals, accepts CSR’s general assertion that everything relevant has been supplied, or abandons the requested clarification of the earlier files. The same discussion expressly records that he maintains the action and his proposals.
PDF p. 2
Open related document
Open timeline event
The next date is 9 February 2026, seventy-five days later
The court sets 9 February 2026 at 10:30, on the parties’ joint proposal, and records that no written summonses will be sent to those present. That is seventy-five days after this hearing. The earlier interval from 15 October to 26 November was forty-two days. These intervals make the actual pace of the case visible; this source establishes a scheduled next date, not proof that the February hearing took place.
PDF p. 2
Open related document
Open timeline event
CSR receives fifteen days to respond
The court gives the defendant’s representative fifteen days from pronouncement to respond in writing. The discussion on page 2 identifies the plaintiff’s submission and his maintained evidence proposals. The linked full submission shows what calls for a response: the earlier case files, the basis of CSR’s authority, representation and the October requests. The period permits a response; it is not a decision resolving those issues or granting all the plaintiff’s requests.
PDF p. 3
Open related document
Open timeline event
The operative text says “defendant”; the preceding discussion says “plaintiff”
The fifteen-day order on page 3 prints “the defendant’s submission of 29 October”. On page 2, the plaintiff refers to his own submission, Maja asks to respond to it, and he agrees to a period for responding to his submission. That is a concrete internal party-label discrepancy in the court record. The translation keeps the printed operative wording and the annotation exposes the difference rather than silently changing the judicial text.
PDF p. 3
Open related document
Open timeline event
Bojana Vujić’s archive order: the evidence CSR holds and the plaintiff invokes
The operative order gives thirty days from pronouncement to provide both the court and the opposing party with archive evidence CSR holds and the plaintiff invokes. The October submission specifies earlier protective records, the basis of CSR’s authority, the 1979 adoption file and the 1984 material. The thirty-day period orders delivery; it does not certify that the requested historical records have already been produced.
PDF p. 3
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