Bojana Vujić’s panel: plaintiff alone, Maja Petrović’s adoption-law defence and an agreed two-year framework — 6 February 2025

This event is anchored in the operative part of the 6 February record. Following the parties’ joint proposal, Bojana Vujić’s panel sets a future two-year/12-hearing framework, adjourns and schedules 26 March at 10:00. It gives the CSR representative 30 days for her position, the plaintiff 30 days for his witness decision and 60 days for employment evidence. The scheduled hearing and planned 12 hearings are distinct from hearings already held.

…hours. They agree that the defendant’s representative should be granted the requested 30 days. They jointly propose that the time frame for conducting the civil proceedings be set at **two years, with a total of 12 hearings**. **THE PANEL MAKES THE FOLLOWING RULING** A time frame of **two years** is set for conducting the civil proceedings. The court will hold a total of **12 hearings**, at which it will take the proposed evidence and possibly other evidence, in accordance with the investigatory principle in family law. On the joint proposal of the plaintiff and the defendant’s representative, **The hearing is adjourned.** The next hearing, likewise on the joint proposal of the plaintiff and the defendant’s representative, is scheduled for: **26 March 2025, commencing at 10:00.** The plaintiff and the defendant’s representative acknowledge this, and written summonses will therefore not be sent to them. The defendant’s representative is granted **30 days from the announcement of the ruling** to set out her position in the above sense. The plaintiff is granted the requested **30 days** to state in writing whether he maintains the witnesses he has proposed. The plaintiff is granted the requested **60 days** to submit evidence concerning his employment or unemployment.

The record says the plaintiff will act on his own and will not engage professional legal assistance. This directly follows his 4 December 2024 submission, which had announced that he would name a lawyer by the end of the year and asked the court not to schedule a hearing before that notification. On 6 February the recorded position is self-representation, while he maintains the claim. The former counsel’s refusal of receipt is recorded separately in the same passage.

It is recorded that lawyer **[redacted]** from Novi Sad has not appeared at the hearing. She refused receipt of the summons because she no longer represents the plaintiff following revocation of the power of attorney. It is recorded that the plaintiff informs the court that he will act on his own in the proceedings and will not engage professional legal assistance. The plaintiff states that he maintains the action and the claim as formulated. He proposes that, in the further course of the proceedings, he be examined as a party to the litigation and that the enclosed written documentation be examined, and proposes to the opposing party **“a settlement, which is very reasonable”**. For that purpose, he proposes that they be granted 30 days to reach a settlement.

Maja Petrović says that a social worker searched for the plaintiff’s biological mother Cvita Miletić after his contact with the CSR in 2005 and promises the details. The linked document is Ljiljana Ristić’s actual report of 9 March 2005. It supplies the contemporaneous account against which Maja’s later description can be read, including the stated searches, the death-register date boundary and the concluding assessment; those details are not quoted at this hearing.

I point out that in **2005**, following the plaintiff’s approach to the Centre in that same year, the social worker handling the matter conducted a search for the plaintiff’s biological mother, **Miletić Cvita**. I will provide all the details of that to the court and the opposing party. Accordingly, I request 30 days to set out my position in detail on all the above. I therefore propose adjournment of the hearing. I agree that the plaintiff should be given 30 days to state whether he maintains the witnesses he has proposed.

The author expressly connects this email to the settlement proposal he presented at the last court hearing. The 6 February record quotes his reasonable-settlement offer and paternity objective without recording detailed terms. This email supplies those terms: recognition of nullity, original identity and continuation of paternity proceedings.

I am writing concerning my settlement proposal, which I presented at the last court hearing. I believe there is room for a reasonable and fair agreement that would enable the dispute to be resolved quickly and avoid additional complications and consequences, both for the institution you represent and for the employees involved in these proceedings. ### 1. Substance of the proposed settlement I propose that the Centre recognize the nullity of my illegal adoption of 1979, which would restore my right to my original identity and open the possibility of continuing my legal struggle to establish paternity — proceedings that are currently barred to me because of the unlawful registration.

The March record preserves Maja Petrović’s renewed fifteen-day request for the statute and detailed position, and the plaintiff’s explanation of the previous witness deadline. The linked 6 February hearing records the earlier thirty-day periods for those different tasks. The March record also mentions both parties’ submissions dated 10 March; the reference to the defendant’s submission is preserved without inventing its unavailable contents.

It is recorded that the defendant’s submission dated **10.03.2025** is handed directly to the **plaintiff’s representative**. The plaintiff states that he maintains his action and the claim made, and his evidentiary proposal that the witness **Vinka Ignjatić** of Budisava, Petefi Šandora 168, and her son **Dragan Ignjatić** be examined in these proceedings. They were neighbours of the late adopters Gospava and Milorad Vasić and are acquainted with the fact that their marriage was dysfunctional even before the full adoption. He maintains his proposal to be examined as a party. He maintains his evidentiary proposal to inspect the Higher Court record already attached to the file, from the hearing in the divorce litigation of his adopters Gospava and Milorad. He maintains the proposal to request inspection of the file in which the marriage was dissolved, **P.1106/82**. He withdraws his evidentiary proposal to obtain officially from the Budisava Health Centre the medical record and medical history of his late adoptive mother Gospava Vasić. He proposes that the defendant be ordered to supply the documentation explaining how he **“came under their jurisdiction”**. These are his evidentiary proposals. He particularly emphasizes that, although at the previous hearing the court gave him the period he himself requested — 30 days to state whether he maintained the proposed witnesses or not — he did not properly understand what he was required to do. He therefore identified only Vinka Ignjatić of Budisava as a witness in his submission dated 10.03.2025, and at today’s hearing has stated that he also maintains the other proposed witnesses. The defendant’s representative states that she opposes the action and the claim in their entirety because the statutory conditions for annulment of the full adoption applicable when it was concluded are not fulfilled. She requests an additional period of **15 days**, during which I will provide a detailed written statement and supply the Adoption Act of SAP Vojvodina containing the provisions. At today’s hearing I submit the social worker’s report in the search procedure for **Cvita Miletić**, dated **09.03.2005**. I oppose the evidentiary proposals to examine all the proposed witnesses about the dysfunctional marriage of the adopters Gospava and Milorad Vasić, since this is not a ground for annulment of the full adoption and such testimony by the proposed witnesses is questionable because of their indirect knowledge of the family circumstances. I agree that the plaintiff should be examined as a party and that the attached written documentation should be inspected, and I request 15 days to provide a detailed written statement and supply the then applicable Adoption Act of SAP Vojvodina which applied at the time of this plaintiff’s full adoption. She also opposes officially requesting inspection of the divorce litigation between the late adopters Gospava and Milorad Vasić, because it and the statements contained therein are not relevant to these proceedings for annulment of the full adoption, since the grounds for annulment must exist at the time the full adoption was established.

Maja Petrović’s signature formula identifies her as acting for the defendant. At the 6 February 2025 hearing she represented the CSR, opposed the claim by invoking the 1976 Act and requested thirty days to obtain and study that Act. This later statutory defense is linked to that recorded procedural step and her identified role.

For the defendant, by authorization **Maja Petrović, law graduate**

The final record again notes that the plaintiff revoked his lawyer’s authority and will act alone. The 6 February 2025 record already expressly documents the earlier termination of representation. This source connection prevents the repeated past-tense entry from being presented as a new start of self-representation in February 2026.

It is recorded that the plaintiff states that he has revoked his lawyer’s authority and will act on his own behalf.