Request to correct ruling P.98/2024 — 13 March 2024

Source and dates

This reader contains a complete English translation of the two-page submission, prepared from the supplied photographs. The public PDF is a redacted copy. The law office's particulars, counsel's name, stamps and signatures, and the plaintiff's personal identification number (JMBG) are marked [redacted]. The judge's full name remains as information concerning a public judicial office.

The submission and court receipt stamp are dated 13 March 2024. The submission states that counsel received the earlier ruling of 26 February on 4 March 2024. That date is reproduced as a statement in the submission. This is a request to correct a ruling, not an appeal. The requested correction, transfer and delivery of a certified copy are described as requests; this source does not establish that the Court granted or carried them out.

Public redacted two-page source PDF

PDF page 1 — Complete translation

[Law office heading and particulars: redacted.]

[Receipt stamp of the Higher Court in Novi Sad: “RECEIVED 13.03.2024”]

TO THE HIGHER COURT IN NOVI SAD
Sutjeska Street No. 3
21101 Novi Sad
Case No. P.98/2024
Judge Biljana Lepotić

PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS

PLAINTIFF: MILAN PETROVIĆ of Kragujevac, Kraljevačkog bataljona Street No. 110, personal identification number (JMBG): [redacted] (hereinafter: the plaintiff), represented by counsel [redacted], an attorney in Novi Sad, [redacted].

[Counsel's stamp and signature on the first page: redacted.]

DEFENDANT: CENTRE FOR SOCIAL WORK OF THE CITY OF NOVI SAD, of Novi Sad, Zmaj Ognjena Vuka Street Nos. 13–17, registration number 08154902 (hereinafter: the defendant), represented by its legal representative, Director Jelena Zorić.

REQUEST TO CORRECT THE ABOVE COURT'S RULING P.98/2024 OF 26 FEBRUARY 2024

[Handwritten in red: “URGENT!”]

Submitted in one copy, duly signed and stamped.

On 22 February 2024, the plaintiff, through his counsel, an attorney, filed with the above Court a statement of claim seeking annulment of adoption, together with a motion for the preservation of evidence.

• EVIDENCE: undisputed; inspection of the case file.

By its Ruling P.98/2024 of 26 February 2024, received by the plaintiff's counsel on 4 March 2024, the above Court declared that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to proceed in this legal matter. It decided to transfer the case file, after the ruling became final, to the Basic Court in Novi Sad for further proceedings, considering that court to have subject-matter and territorial jurisdiction.

In the instructions on appeal in that ruling, the above Court also informed the plaintiff that he had the right to appeal against the ruling to the Court of Appeal in Novi Sad within 15 days from the date of its service.

• EVIDENCE: undisputed; inspection of the case file.

Through this submission, the plaintiff points out that the Court committed an oversight and an error by leaving him the possibility of appealing, because under Article 17, paragraph 4 of the Civil Procedure

PDF page 2 — Complete translation

Law an appeal against the ruling issued by the Court cannot be lodged, as such an appeal is inadmissible. Article 17, paragraph 4 of the Civil Procedure Law (ZPP) provides the following:

“No appeal is permitted against a ruling of a higher first-instance court declaring that it has subject-matter jurisdiction, AS WELL AS AGAINST A RULING BY WHICH THAT COURT DECLARED THAT IT LACKED SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION AND TRANSFERRED THE CASE TO A LOWER FIRST-INSTANCE COURT OF THE SAME TYPE.”

Therefore, although the plaintiff's counsel remains of the view that the Higher Court in Novi Sad has subject-matter and territorial jurisdiction over this legal matter, for the reasons set out in detail in the statement of claim, she does not wish to exercise a right to which she is not entitled by law and have her appeal rightly dismissed as inadmissible by the Court of Appeal in Novi Sad. If an oversight were to occur and the appeal were nevertheless decided, the question would arise of the validity of such a decision, delivered on an appeal that could not properly be decided. Time is being lost, and it is extremely precious in this case. In any event, if the Basic Court in Novi Sad does not raise a conflict of jurisdiction, there is a legally permitted way to review its decision accepting jurisdiction.

In accordance with all of the foregoing, having regard to the aforementioned provisions of the Civil Procedure Law, and so that the plaintiff does not encounter possible procedural problems from not lodging an appeal, which is in fact inadmissible,

WE PROPOSE THAT THE COURT:

as urgently as possible, issue a decision correcting its Ruling P.98/2024 of 26 February 2024 in the instructions on appeal, by determining that no appeal is permitted against it; transfer the case file to the Basic Court in Novi Sad; and deliver to the plaintiff's counsel a certified copy of the ruling correcting Ruling P.98/2024 of 26 February 2024.

In Novi Sad, 13 March 2024

For the plaintiff MILAN PETROVIĆ

[Counsel's signature and stamp on the second page: redacted.]

Counsel, an attorney
[redacted]

Editorial note

This note is not part of the submission. The receipt stamp of 13 March concerns this request. The date 4 March in the text concerns receipt of the earlier ruling by the plaintiff's counsel. This submission retains the address number 110, whereas the earlier ruling stated 10. The citation of Article 17, paragraph 4 and the assertion that an appeal is inadmissible are reproduced as the submission's reasoning and request, not as a subsequent court decision on those matters.