Judge Bojana Vujić declares the Basic Court without jurisdiction — conflict referred to the Appellate Court, 29 April 2024

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.

This later author’s account describes a second summons for the same hearing, his uncertainty about the first recipient, and his attendance alone after representation ended. It connects with the separate later author’s note about self-representation from November in the 29 April document package. The linked account is an appendix to that package, not part of the April court ruling’s reasoning or operative part.

The author explains that he was told that the summons for **the same hearing** was being sent **for the second time**. He does not know whether the first summons was sent to him or to his former lawyer, who had informed the court that she no longer represented him. He received the latest summons and came to the hearing alone. This is his later account; it is separate from the court record’s statement about the defendant CSR’s representative being duly summoned.

The 29 April event is supported by the written ruling of the Basic Court, issued by Bojana Vujić: the court declares itself without subject-matter jurisdiction and orders the file sent to the Appellate Court in Novi Sad to resolve the conflict of jurisdiction.

**The Basic Court in Novi Sad DECLARES ITSELF without subject-matter jurisdiction to act in this legal matter.** **The file shall be sent to the Appellate Court in Novi Sad for resolution of the conflict of jurisdiction.**

At the 24 April hearing, the panel presided over by Bojana Vujić recorded that it would decide the further course of proceedings in writing. The 29 April ruling supplies that subsequent written procedural act: the Basic Court declines subject-matter jurisdiction and sends the file for resolution of the jurisdictional conflict.

**The Basic Court in Novi Sad DECLARES ITSELF without subject-matter jurisdiction to act in this legal matter.** **The file shall be sent to the Appellate Court in Novi Sad for resolution of the conflict of jurisdiction.**

The reasons in the 29 April ruling expressly recount the filing of the claim on 22 February and the Higher Court’s P.98/2024 ruling of 26 February, which declared a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and referred the case to the Basic Court. Comparing the two rulings shows the documented route into the later conflict of jurisdiction.

On **22 February 2024**, the plaintiff, through his authorized representative, filed a claim with the Higher Court in Novi Sad against the defendant for annulment of full adoption. On **26 February 2024**, the Higher Court in Novi Sad issued ruling No. **P.98/2024**, declaring itself without subject-matter jurisdiction to proceed further in this legal matter and referring the case file to the Basic Court in Novi Sad as the court with subject-matter and territorial jurisdiction for further proceedings.

The 29 April ruling recounts the correction request of 13 March and the jurisdiction objection of 1 April. In its account of the plaintiff’s submissions, it records his statements that the request remained unanswered and that 20 March had been entered as the wrong date of finality. The original 13 March request permits comparison with this subsequent court account.

On **13 March 2024**, the plaintiff, through his authorized representative, sent a submission to the Higher Court in Novi Sad requesting that it issue a decision correcting its ruling No. **P.98/2024 of 26 February 2024** in the part concerning the instruction on legal remedies, by establishing that no appeal against that ruling was permitted and referring the case file to the Basic Court in Novi Sad, and that it serve the plaintiff’s authorized representative with a certified copy of the ruling correcting ruling No. P.98/2024 of 26 February 2024. On **1 April 2024**, the plaintiff, through his authorized representative, filed a submission with the Basic Court in Novi Sad in which he stated that he was raising a procedural objection to the Basic Court’s lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. He stated that, in its ruling No. P.98/2024 of 26 February 2024 declaring itself without subject-matter jurisdiction, the Higher Court in Novi Sad had incorrectly instructed the plaintiff that he had a right to appeal against that ruling to the Appellate Court in Novi Sad within 15 days of receiving it, whereas such an appeal was in fact not permitted under **Article 17(4) of the Civil Procedure Act**. He stated that, on 13 March 2024, the plaintiff’s authorized representative had sent a submission to the Higher Court in Novi Sad requesting a ruling correcting the ruling on lack of jurisdiction, establishing that the court had made an oversight and that no appeal was permitted, but that the Higher Court had not answered that submission. He then pointed out that the Higher Court had marked an incorrect date of finality for that ruling. He stated that, instead of 26 February 2024 as the day on which the ruling was issued, the Higher Court had determined **20 March 2024** as the day of finality, the day after expiry of an appeal period which could not even have begun to run because an appeal was prohibited by law.