Final hearing record P2.1435/24 — 9 February 2026
Editorial introduction. Full translation of the supplied two-page Basic Court hearing record. Its assertions about reading the case file are expressly disputed in the separate author’s account below. The record closes the hearing and orders service of a written judgment; it does not contain the judgment or its outcome.
Source page 1
P2. 1435/24
RECORD OF THE MAIN HEARING
Drawn up on 9 February 2026, before the Basic Court in Novi Sad.
Presiding judge: BOJANA VUJIĆ
Panel members — lay judges: Mirjana Ninkov; Jelena Grujić.
Court recorder: TATJANA NIKOLIĆ.
Plaintiff: PETROVIĆ MILAN.
Defendant: NOVI SAD SOCIAL WORK CENTRE (CSR).
Subject matter of the dispute: [field left blank].
Started at 10:30. The hearing is not public.
The presiding judge opens the main hearing, announces its subject matter and establishes that the following have attended:
For the plaintiff: in person.
For the defendant: Maja Petrović, graduate lawyer at the CSR, has appeared.
Other summoned persons who have not attended: [field left blank].
*) In proceedings concerning small claims, in addition to the particulars under Article 118, paragraph 1, this record must contain:
- Statements concerning the parties of greater significance, particularly those admitting the claim in whole or in part, abandoning the claim or an appeal, or amending or withdrawing the action;
- The essential content of the evidence taken;
- Decisions against which an appeal is permitted and which were announced at the main hearing;
- Whether the parties were present when the judgment was announced and, if present, whether they were informed of the conditions under which they may lodge an appeal.
To enter the necessary particulars 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 makes the following
ORDER
The proceedings are resumed 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 the plaintiff states that he has revoked his lawyer’s authority and will act on his own behalf.
The plaintiff states that he maintains the action and the claim as formulated, all assertions and all submissions. He has no further evidence proposals. He proposes that the hearing be closed. He withdraws all other evidence proposals that may have been made. He expressly states that he maintains all assertions made thus far, both orally and in writing.
The defendant’s representative states that she opposes the action and the claim as formulated for all reasons stated thus far. She has no further evidence proposals. She agrees that the hearing be closed.
The panel makes the following
ORDER
All written documentation attached to the case file is inspected by reading it individually and by name.
The hearing is closed.
Serve a written copy of the judgment on the plaintiff and defendant.
Completed at 10:51.
Court recorder · Parties · Presiding judge
Separate author’s account — disputed reading of the case file
The author expressly disputes both assertions that the file was read: the initial statement that the proceedings were resumed by reading the file and the final statement that all written documentation was read individually and by name. He states that nothing was read at this hearing. They only concluded that everything had been said and that he maintained everything he had presented orally and in writing.
Editorial source connection. The entry about revoked authority does not establish that self-representation began on 9 February 2026: the 5 November 2024 record and 6 February 2025 record already document the earlier representation history. This final record names no witnesses and contains no decision rejecting Vinka or Dragan Ignjatić. Their examination was proposed in the earlier statement of claim and maintained in the 26 March 2025 record. Those earlier proposals must be distinguished from the author’s account of what he raised at the final hearing and from the general withdrawal formulation recorded here.
Comments on source passages (10)
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)
Changed panel and recorded reading
The panel chaired by Bojana Vujić cites a change in its composition and resumes the proceedings by reading the file. The October record already documents examination of the plaintiff and filing of his written statement. The recorded procedural formula must be distinguished from the author’s express denial that anything was read at the final hearing.
PDF p. 2
Open related document
Open timeline event
Self-representation was already ongoing
The record again mentions revoked authority and acting in person. This is not a new start of self-representation on 9 February 2026. The 5 November 2024 record already documents his personal attendance, while the linked 6 February 2025 record expressly documents the earlier termination of representation. The past-tense entry here does not establish a new date on which authority ended.
PDF p. 2
Open related document
Open timeline event
All written and oral assertions maintained
According to the record, Milan Petrović expressly maintains the action, the claim, all submissions and all previous oral and written assertions. This includes the linked final submission dated 12 January 2026, which sets out his case concerning nullity of the adoption, violent assimilation and the evidence chain. Closing the hearing is not, in this sentence, withdrawal of his argument or claim.
PDF p. 2
Open related document
Open timeline event
General withdrawal and earlier witnesses
The same paragraph that maintains all assertions contains a general formulation withdrawing other evidence proposals that may have been made. It does not identify those proposals. The earlier claim through counsel expressly proposes Vinka and Dragan Ignjatić, and the 26 March 2025 record notes maintenance of those proposals. These should be connected to this formulation without claiming that they were first proposed here or that this record contains a separate decision rejecting them.
PDF p. 2
Open related document
Open timeline event
Maja Petrović maintains the CSR defence
Maja Petrović makes no new evidence proposals, maintains opposition to the action for all previous reasons, and agrees to close the hearing. The linked CSR submission dated 22 December 2025 shows part of that earlier defence: reliance on Vera’s dossier and the conclusion that the adoption was lawful. This statement does not repeat those reasons in detail or turn them into judicial findings.
PDF p. 2
Open related document
Open timeline event
Final assertion that every document was read
This is a second, distinct assertion about reading: Bojana Vujić’s panel records inspection of all attached written documentation by reading it individually and by name. Although it describes that procedure, the record does not list the individual documents here. The author expressly denies that this reading took place; his separate account disputes both this final formulation and the initial reading of the file.
PDF p. 2
Open related document
Open timeline event
Closure at 10:51 and written judgment
The panel closes the hearing and orders a written copy of the judgment to be served on both parties. Twenty-one minutes passed between the 10:30 start and the 10:51 end. This is the hearing previously scheduled in the 26 November 2025 record; the judgment’s text and reasoning are not contained in these two pages.
PDF p. 2
Open related document
Open timeline event
Author: nothing was read
The author expressly disputes both statements in the record about reading. According to his account, neither the initial reading of the file nor the final individual reading of the documentation by name took place. They only concluded that everything had been said and that he maintained his written and oral assertions. This comment conveys his direct account of the final hearing separately from the text drawn up by the court.
MD line 80 · separate author’s account
Open related document
Open timeline event