Court procedural record / Primary source

Aleksandra Pekez Kalinić’s panel assigns jurisdiction to the Basic Court — R.22/24, 21 August 2024

The Appellate Court panel of Aleksandra Pekez Kalinić, Vesna Bojović and Olivera Pejak Prokeš resolves the jurisdictional conflict in favour of the Basic Court. Its reasons recount the Vojvodina 1976 argument, then rely on a 1980 statute and the 2023 court-organization statute. The Basic Court receipt stamp is dated 30 August.

Court of Appeal in Novi Sad 2024-08-21
On 21 August 2024, the Appellate Court in Novi Sad, sitting as the panel chaired by Aleksandra Pekez Kalinić with Vesna Bojović and Olivera Pejak Prokeš, determines in R.22/24 that the Basic Court in Novi Sad has subject-matter jurisdiction over Milan Petrović’s claim for annulment of full adoption. The document does not decide the merits of that claim. The first page recounts the Higher Court’s 26 February P.98/2024 ruling and the Basic Court’s contrary reliance on Article 28(1) of the Adoption Act of the SAP of Vojvodina, Gazette 24/76, together with Article 358(1) of the Family Act. On the second page, the panel reasons through Article 358 of the Family Act and Articles 418 and 185 of the Act on Marriage and Family Relations. The repeal reference there names the Adoption Act published in the Socialist Republic of Serbia’s Gazette 17/76, a different cited designation from SAPV 24/76. The panel reads Article 185 as prescribing territorial jurisdiction only and applies Articles 24(2) and 25 of the Act on the Organization of Courts to subject-matter jurisdiction. It states that the district court no longer exists and that the former adoption statute’s reference to that court cannot establish the Higher Court’s jurisdiction contrary to the applicable court-organization statute. These are the panel’s stated reasons. The ruling is dated 21 August; the Basic Court receipt stamp is 30 August 2024. There are 114 days between the 29 April Basic Court ruling and this 21 August ruling. The PDF does not identify when the file arrived at the Appellate Court.
Back to documents Open PDF Open annotated text

Related evidence

Aleksandra Pekez Kalinić’s panel determines that the Basic Court has jurisdiction — R.22/24
Why this source is linked
Related source

The 21 August event is supported by the operative part of R.22/24: the Appellate Court panel chaired by Aleksandra Pekez Kalinić determines that the Basic Court in Novi Sad has subject-matter jurisdiction. The panel also includes Vesna Bojović and Olivera Pejak Prokeš. The receipt stamp of 30 August is a separate Basic Court date.

**The Basic Court in Novi Sad has subject-matter jurisdiction to proceed in this legal matter.**
Open supporting passage
Judge Bojana Vujić declares the Basic Court without jurisdiction — conflict referred to the Appellate Court, 29 April 2024
Why this source is linked
Related source

The Appellate Court expressly recounts the Basic Court’s reason for raising the jurisdictional conflict: Article 28(1) of the Vojvodina Adoption Act, Gazette 24/76, assigned annulment to the district court for the adoption established in 1979. The 29 April ruling preserves that original argument; R.22/24 supplies the subsequent panel’s decision and different statutory reasoning.

After the case file was delivered, the Basic Court in Novi Sad declared itself without jurisdiction and raised a conflict of jurisdiction, relying on **Article 24(2) of the Act on the Organization of Courts**, **Article 358(1) of the Family Act**, and **Article 28(1) of the Adoption Act of the SAP of Vojvodina (Official Gazette of the SAP of Vojvodina No. 24/76)**. In the reasons for its decision, that court stated that this particular case concerned full adoption established and declared by a decision of the Self-Managing Community of Interest for Social Protection of Novi Sad, **No. UP.03-507/79 of 21 June 1979**, in Novi Sad. At that time, the Adoption Act of the SAP of Vojvodina was in force and prescribed in Article 28(1) that the district court decides on annulment of adoption. Accordingly, it sent the case file to the Appellate Court in Novi Sad to resolve the conflict of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Open supporting passage
Bojana Vujić’s panel grants 30 days for a written position and fee-exemption evidence — 5 November 2024
Why this source is linked
Related source

The hearing record expressly identifies R.22/24 of 21 August 2024 as the Appellate Court ruling handed directly to the plaintiff on 5 November. The linked document is that ruling by Aleksandra Pekez Kalinić’s panel, which assigns jurisdiction to the Basic Court. The connection distinguishes the August decision from its recorded handover at this hearing.

It is recorded that the Appellate Court in Novi Sad’s ruling **R.22/24 of 21 August 2024** is handed directly to the plaintiff.
Open supporting passage
Higher Court in Novi Sad P.98/2024 — Judge Dr Biljana Lepotić's ruling on jurisdiction, 26 February 2024
Why this source is linked
Related source

R.22/24 expressly recounts the Higher Court’s P.98/2024 ruling of 26 February, its declaration of lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and subsequent referral to the Basic Court. It identifies the Higher Court’s reliance on Article 24(2) of the court-organization statute and Article 274 of the Family Act. Linking the original ruling allows comparison with the Appellate Court’s account and final jurisdictional decision.

By ruling **P.98/2024 of 26 February 2024**, the Higher Court in Novi Sad declared itself without subject-matter jurisdiction to proceed in this legal matter and, after the ruling became final, referred the case file to the Basic Court in Novi Sad, as the court with subject-matter and territorial jurisdiction, for further proceedings. It relied on **Article 24(2) of the applicable Act on the Organization of Courts**, in conjunction with **Article 274 of the Family Act**. In support of its decision, that court stated that the particular case was a family dispute brought for annulment of full adoption, to which Article 24(2) of the Act on the Organization of Courts must be applied, while Article 25 of the same Act prescribes the Higher Court’s jurisdiction in family disputes only in cases contesting or establishing paternity or maternity. The applicable Family Act, as a special law, does not prescribe the Higher Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction for this particular type of dispute, but only the court’s territorial jurisdiction.
Open supporting passage
Appellate Court dismisses the appeal: Branka Perc, Aleksandra Pekez Kalinić and Marko Prentović — Gž2 211/26, 22 April 2026
Why this source is linked
Related source

Aleksandra Pekez Kalinić is a member of this deciding panel and was also named in the 21 August 2024 decision R.22/24 on the jurisdiction conflict. The earlier decision settled jurisdiction; the present panel, chaired by Branka Perc with Marko Prentović as another member, decides the appeal against the judgment.

The Appellate Court in Novi Sad, in a panel consisting of judges **Branka Perc**, presiding judge, **Aleksandra Pekez Kalinić** and **Marko Prentović**, panel members, in the legal matter of the plaintiff **MILAN PETROVIĆ** of Kragujevac, Kraljevačkog bataljona Street 110, JMBG 2806974800030, against the defendant **CENTRE FOR SOCIAL WORK OF THE CITY OF NOVI SAD**, Zmaj Ognjena Vuka Street 13–17, registration number 08154902, represented by Maja Petrović, a graduate lawyer employed by the defendant, concerning annulment of a full adoption, deciding on the plaintiff’s appeal against the judgment of the Basic Court in Novi Sad P2 1435/2024 of 9 February 2026, at the panel session held on 22 April 2026, delivered the following
Open supporting passage