Hearing of 15 October 2025: Bojana Vujić, Branislav Čolak and the plaintiff’s evidence on identity and adoption

The record establishes the hearing held on 15 October 2025 before Bojana Vujić. Its start and finish are 10:30 and 11:35; this event marks the hearing, not merely an earlier scheduled date.

Drawn up on **15 October 2025** before the **Basic Court in Novi Sad**.

The October record documents the plaintiff’s examination, filing of his written statement, permission to continue in writing and scheduling of this November hearing. CSR was then represented by Branislav Čolak; this source now names Maja Petrović. The link follows the change in representation and the next procedural step without treating it as a decision on Čolak’s earlier authority.

For the defendant: **representative Maja Petrović, law graduate, CSR**

The opening order cites a changed panel composition and reading of the file. The 15 October 2025 record documents the plaintiff’s earlier examination and filing of his written statement. This connects the earlier examination record to the final procedural formulation, whose asserted reading the author expressly disputes.

In view of the change in the composition of the panel, the panel makes the following ### ORDER The proceedings are resumed by reading the case file. The case file is read. It is recorded that there are no objections to what has been read.

The plaintiff says he is submitting his detailed written statement; the court then records its inclusion and service of a copy on CSR. The two texts are separate sources of the same hearing, and neither replaces the other.

“when the adoption was established what my nationality was, and social worker Vera Radovanović told him ‘Serbian’. I consider that the entire process of my full adoption was conducted unlawfully by the Centre for Social Work in Novi Sad, and that is why I request that the full adoption procedure be annulled. At today’s hearing I am also submitting, for the court and the opposing party, my detailed written statement dated **15 October 2025**, in which I set everything out in detail. That is all I have to say.” It is recorded that the plaintiff’s written statement bearing the date **15 October 2025** is placed in the file, and a copy is handed directly to the defendant’s representative. The defendant’s representative has no questions and no objections.

The hearing grants fifteen days from pronouncement for further written evidence proposals. The submission dated 27 October provides those proposals and procedural requests. Its date falls twelve days after the hearing; proof of actual filing remains a separate question.

The plaintiff is granted the requested period of **fifteen days from the pronouncement of the order** to state in writing his further proposals for evidence.

The appeal lists the issues the author says he presented in his examination on 15 October 2025. The hearing record and the written statement received that day provide the source for comparison with the court’s later summary and evidentiary assessment.

The challenged judgment does not show that the court genuinely and critically assessed those attachments. On the contrary, the reasoning indicates that the documents the court actually relied on substantively in reaching its decision were primarily the defendant’s internal acts and the adoption documentation, while the plaintiff’s decisive attachments were either passed over in silence or reduced to mere formal presence in the file without a genuine evidentiary assessment. The judgment thus remained incomplete and selective in its assessment of the evidence, because it does not show why or how the court rejected or suppressed the plaintiff’s decisive attachments already present in the file, which directly concern the lawfulness of the challenged adoption. It is particularly methodologically wrong that the court effectively equated the authenticity and official provenance of the documentation with the truth of its contents. That is not a genuine assessment of evidence, but a presumption of lawfulness in favour of the body whose conduct is the very subject of this dispute. #### 4. The court did not answer the plaintiff’s decisive arguments in his testimony of 15 October 2025 At the hearing of 15 October 2025, I explained in detail: - that I do not know the basis on which CSR acquired authority over me; - that on 20 July 1979 the court requested the appointment of a guardian to protect my rights in the probate proceedings, not for adoption; - that Vera Radovanović was both the special-purpose guardian and a person participating in the adoption proceedings; - that the full-adoption proceedings were accelerated immediately before my fifth birthday; - that the professional reports contradict each other; - that a second adoption was subsequently carried out in 1984. The judgment did not genuinely consider those arguments. Instead, it flattened them through the general formula that my testimony was accepted only insofar as it was “consistent with the evidence to which the court gave credence”. #### 5. The judgment rests on circular reasoning The court did not genuinely scrutinise the lawfulness of the contested proceedings. Instead, it wrongly treated the existence and formal authenticity of archive documentation as sufficient proof that the statutory requirements for full adoption had been met. The court accepted the guardianship body’s internal documentation in advance as credible and sufficient, then accepted my testimony only insofar as it was “consistent with the evidence to which the court gave credence”. The court thereby first gave priority to the very body whose conduct is in dispute, and then measured the truth of my testimony against that same documentation. Such an approach constitutes circular reasoning and shows that the court measured the contested conduct against neither the law nor external facts, but against the internal documentation of the body whose conduct was the subject of the dispute. #### 6. The judgment shows elements of formulaic reasoning

The 28 August order set 15 October at 10:30 after canceling the September hearing. This later record now establishes that the October hearing actually took place before Bojana Vujić; the earlier order alone established only the scheduled date.

Drawn up on **15 October 2025** before the **Basic Court in Novi Sad**.