Bojana Vujić’s hearing: “how he came under their jurisdiction”, CSR opposition and an order for adoption records — 26 March 2025

The record identifies the 26 March 2025 hearing in P2.1435/24, Bojana Vujić as presiding judge, the plaintiff’s personal appearance and Maja Petrović for the defendant CSR. Its final page contains the operative adoption-documentation order. This timeline event represents the recorded hearing, distinct from the next hearing only scheduled for 5 June.

Drawn up on **26.03.2025** before the Basic Court in Novi Sad. Presiding judge: **Bojana Vujić** Panel members — lay judges: Cicmil Zoran; Maravić Mirjana Recording clerk: Tatjana Nikolić Plaintiff: **PETROVIĆ MILAN** Defendant: **CENTRE FOR SOCIAL WORK** Subject of dispute: [field unfilled] Start at **10:00**. The hearing is **non-public**. The presiding judge opens the main hearing, announces the subject for consideration and establishes that the following have attended: For the plaintiff: **in person**. For the defendant: representative, law graduate **Maja Petrović**.

Maja Petrović’s response expressly distinguishes adoption-establishment records from earlier family-law-protection files explaining how the plaintiff came under the Centre’s authority. The linked 3871/79 dossier contains actual pre-adoption placement documentation and work notes, including the conflicting April 1979 descriptions of the father. It supplies directly inspectable earlier records for the plaintiff’s requested administrative history.

Responding to the foregoing, the defendant’s representative states that, concerning the complete documentation of his adoption by Gospava and Milorad Vasić and requiring the defendant to supply it, **we do not oppose supplying files concerning the establishment of the full adoption, but we oppose supplying files involving the application of family-law-protection measures before the full adoption was established**, or, as the plaintiff requested, supplying **“how he came under our jurisdiction”**, because this would burden the proceedings in question and the relevance of such files to these proceedings is in question.

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 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.

The plaintiff describes the 26 March documentation order broadly. The linked court record gives his request, Maja Petrović’s objection to earlier protection files, and the exact final order for adoption documentation held by the defendant.

- The Centre also failed to comply with the court’s clear order of 26 March 2025 to provide the complete documentation on how and on what basis it acquired authority over the child (the plaintiff), thereby continuing to obstruct these proceedings.

The plaintiff retains the request for the Vasić divorce file P.1106/82 and the attached hearing record; Maja Petrović objects to their relevance, invoking the requirement that annulment grounds exist at adoption. The original divorce file is linked to compare the statements and the times they describe with that objection. The plaintiff’s separate withdrawal concerns obtaining Gospava’s health-centre history, not the divorce-file request.

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.

Both documents concern Milan Petrović’s full-adoption annulment action against CSR in P 2.1435/24 before Bojana Vujić. The 26 March record scheduled 5 June; the later author account describes the move to 3 September. This 28 August order cancels the September date. The link follows the case without treating the March record as proof of the later cancellation.

The Basic Court in Novi Sad, acting through Judge Bojana Vujić, in the legal matter of the plaintiff MILAN PETROVIĆ of Kragujevac, Kraljevačkog bataljona no. 110, against the defendant CENTRE FOR SOCIAL WORK OF THE CITY OF NOVI SAD, concerning annulment of a full adoption, has issued the following

In March, the plaintiff asked for the records showing how he came under CSR authority; CSR opposed the preceding protective files, while the court’s order concerned adoption documentation held by CSR. The November response again addresses the preceding acts through a storage description. The link traces the same request across the hearings without treating descriptions of storage as the act establishing the institutional basis.

**5.** Regarding the “complete preceding acts”, the **plaintiff** stated at the hearing held on **26 November 2025**, explaining that **adoption files are kept separately in a special metal cabinet** at the Centre for Social Work, under special regulations, while the files of all other proceedings at the Centre constitute archival material kept in accordance with the law.

The record states that Maja Petrović supplies the 9 March 2005 social-worker report on the search for Cvita Miletić, that a photocopy enters the case file and that the plaintiff receives it again despite already possessing it. The linked original report signed by Ljiljana Ristić preserves the actual inquiries and recommendation. This relation identifies the report introduced, rather than a new mother-search event in 2025.

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. It is recorded that a photocopy of the social worker’s report in the search procedure for Cvita Miletić dated 09.03.2005 is placed in the file and a copy handed directly to the plaintiff, although he states that he possesses that record.

The 26 March record separates the plaintiff’s request to establish how he came within CSR’s authority from the operative order requiring the adoption documentation held by the defendant. Reading both passages prevents the author’s broader request from being presented as the exact wording of the order.

## Source page 1 BASIC COURT IN NOVI SAD Case no.: P2.1435/24 PLAINTIFF: Milan Petrović (born as Milivoj Miletić), Kraljevačkog bataljona 110, Kragujevac DEFENDANT: Centre for Social Work of the City of Novi Sad, Zmaj Ognjena Vuka 13, Novi Sad # PLAINTIFF’S SUBMISSION (In response to defendant’s submission no. 560-111-1/2024 of 22 December 2025; supplementation of proposed evidence and legal reasoning) ### I. INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL FRAMEWORK By submission no. 560-111-1/2024 of 22 December 2025, the defendant supplies certain archive documents (the dossier cover, foster-carer questionnaire, contracts and decisions on family placement, case-monitoring sheet and beneficiary’s personal record), and draws the following conclusions from those documents: - that, as a child, I was “without parental care”; - that allegedly “none of the close relatives” wanted to assume care of me; - that adoption was “the best form of protection under family law”; - that “there were no grounds for annulling the adoption at the time it was established” and “everything complied with the regulations then in force”. At the same time, the defendant has still not complied with all this Court’s orders, particularly those requiring submission of: - the complete documentation concerning the acquisition of authority over the case (“how the child came under its authority”); and - the complete file on the full adoption in 1979, in accordance with: 1. the minutes and orders from the hearing of 26 March 2025; and 2. the Court’s decision at the hearing of 26 November 2025 (the fifteen- and thirty-day periods). Through this submission, I: 1. respond to the assertions in the defendant’s submission of 22 December 2025; 2. point out the selective and incorrect interpretation of the documentation supplied; 3. specify the nature of the violation — deprivation of identity, forced assimilation (Serbianization), and the fact that this is a continuing act; 4. propose that, because of the persistent failure to supply crucial acts, the Court draw adverse evidentiary inferences regarding the disputed points. Note: This submission is presented as a procedural act in these proceedings, but was also written to reconstruct the facts and institutional conduct comprehensively through evidence, bearing in mind that the consequences of the contested act constitute a continuing violation and that the contents of the judgment and case file will matter beyond a single courtroom.

The hearing date is 26 March 2025 and Maja Petrović appears for the CSR. The linked email thread records the Centre’s reception-office acknowledgment of the author’s settlement proposal on 3 March at 08:30 CET. This puts the proposal before the hearing. The hearing record does not mention that offer or record a substantive response to it.

Drawn up on **26.03.2025** before the Basic Court in Novi Sad. Presiding judge: **Bojana Vujić** Panel members — lay judges: Cicmil Zoran; Maravić Mirjana Recording clerk: Tatjana Nikolić Plaintiff: **PETROVIĆ MILAN** Defendant: **CENTRE FOR SOCIAL WORK** Subject of dispute: [field unfilled] Start at **10:00**. The hearing is **non-public**. The presiding judge opens the main hearing, announces the subject for consideration and establishes that the following have attended: For the plaintiff: **in person**. For the defendant: representative, law graduate **Maja Petrović**.

The plaintiff expressly maintains his original action and claim, his own examination, the proposed neighbours’ testimony about conditions before adoption, and the divorce-record proposals. The linked full 2024 claim supplies the substantive allegations and documentary arguments to which those evidentiary requests relate. This hearing is a procedural continuation of that action.

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.

In March the plaintiff asked how he had come under CSR’s authority, and Maja opposed production of the earlier protective records as burdensome and of disputed relevance. The November record now discusses locating the 1974 material and orders delivery of archive evidence CSR holds and the plaintiff invokes. This link makes the earlier request and the later archive-production order readable together, with each order’s actual wording preserved.

The defendant’s representative is given a period of **30 days from the pronouncement of the ruling** to provide the court and the opposing party with the evidence it holds in its archive and to which the plaintiff refers.

The court requires a detailed position, evidence and all adoption documentation held by the CSR within fifteen days. The linked CSR defense carries a heading of 1 April and closing date of 7 May 2025, quotes the 1976 Act and lists ten evidentiary items. The relation lets readers compare the order with the later defense’s actual contents; the defense’s printed dates do not establish its filing or receipt date or prove compliance with or breach of this order.

The defendant’s representative is required, **within 15 days from announcement of the order**, to provide a detailed written statement and submit the relevant evidence as stated above, and within the same period to supply **all documentation held by the defendant concerning the plaintiff’s adoption** by the adopters, now deceased, Gospava and Milorad Vasić.

The judgment rejects hearing Vinka and Dragan Ignjatić on procedural-economy grounds. The March 2025 record expressly contains the plaintiff’s proposal to hear them, as does the original claim. The documentary link establishes when the proposal was already made, separately from the account of the final hearing.

The court rejected the plaintiff’s proposal that **Vinka Ignjatić and Dragan Ignjatić** be heard as witnesses, considering that the facts had been sufficiently examined even without taking that evidence, so that doing so would only prolong the proceedings, and having regard throughout to the principle of procedural economy.