Author’s account: arrival on 5 June 2025, oral explanation and acceptance of 3 September

The 5 June timeline entry opens the author’s account of his arrival, the oral explanation he heard and the September date he accepted. Its source is this author testimony, not a newly supplied court record.

The author states that he came to the court on **5 June 2025 at the scheduled time**. The judge told him orally that the CSR’s lawyer **“had broken her leg”**. No evidence of that reason was shown to him. He agreed to **3 September 2025** as the next hearing date and **received no written document** concerning that change.

The 26 March written record scheduled 5 June at 10:00. The later June account reports the author’s arrival and the oral change to 3 September, connecting his testimony to that earlier scheduling record.

This is the author’s separately provided account. The written record of 26 March 2025 had scheduled 5 June at 10:00; the oral explanation and the September date above come from his account, not from a new court record.

The author’s earlier account says that on 5 June he accepted 3 September as the next hearing date after an oral explanation. The 28 August written order cancels that 3 September date and schedules 15 October. The earlier oral account and this written decision are separate sources in the same sequence.

The hearing scheduled for 3 September 2025, starting at 10:00, is canceled. The next hearing is scheduled for 15 October 2025, starting at 10:30, courtroom 210/2. You are informed of this by this order; you will not receive another summons.

The response states that CSR did not attend on 5 June. The separate author account supplies his description of the oral explanation, lack of a written document handed to him and acceptance of 3 September.

- The Centre for Social Work did not attend the hearing scheduled for 5 June 2025, thereby showing disrespect for the court and the proceedings.

The period stated in this November record starts on 9 June. The author’s separate account concerns his arrival at court and the explanation he received on 5 June, four days earlier. The link keeps those distinct dates and source types visible; the November statement alone does not establish the circumstances of the earlier cancellation.

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.