26 November 2025 hearing: Bojana Vujić gives CSR 15 days to respond and 30 days for archive evidence

The source records a hearing held on 26 November 2025 before Bojana Vujić. It contains the parties’ statements and the panel’s procedural orders.

Drawn up on **26 November 2025** before the Basic Court in Novi Sad Presiding judge: **BOJANA VUJIĆ**

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 plaintiff maintains the evidence proposals in his October submission and asks for CSR to respond. This hearing prints 29 October, whereas the linked submission bears 27 October. The full submission makes the maintained requests accessible; the link preserves the date difference rather than inventing a receipt date.

The plaintiff states that he maintains the action and the claim as formulated. He maintains the proposals for evidence in point 2 of his submission of **29 October 2025**. He has no proposals for evidence other than these. He proposes that the opposing party be given a short period to respond to the statements and proposals in his submission.

The response invokes the hearing of 26 November when describing where earlier files are kept. The actual hearing record sets separate periods of 15 days for a response and 30 days for archive evidence possessed by CSR and invoked by the plaintiff. It records Maja Petrović’s search for a 1974 file, but does not mention a metal cabinet. The record allows the statement about storage and the actual court orders to be compared.

**4.** Regarding the requested “instruction to the registrar, all acts concerning registration/annulment”, the defendant hereby states that the document in question was **submitted with the statement of claim and designated as attachment no. 5** (on pages 13 and 14). **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 2 October submission requested evidence concerning the earlier absence. This November source expressly records copies being filed and handed to the plaintiff. The connection follows the request and the recorded delivery; it does not turn the plaintiff’s proposed medical form, deadlines and other requirements into court orders.

It is noted that a photocopy of a report on temporary incapacity for work in the name of **Petrović Maja** and a photocopy of a specialist doctor’s report dated **9 June 2025** are placed in the case file, and that a copy is handed directly to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff invokes the 26 November orders. That record contains the separate 15-day response and 30-day archive deadlines and the actual statement about archive locations.

## 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 August CSR request justified cancellation of the September hearing by illness of an unnamed representative. Maja Petrović now speaks about her own absence and records being supplied for the stated June–November period. These sources permit a precise comparison between the earlier stated reason and the later recorded delivery; they do not establish every earlier absence as the same occurrence.

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. It is noted that a photocopy of a report on temporary incapacity for work in the name of **Petrović Maja** and a photocopy of a specialist doctor’s report dated **9 June 2025** are placed in the case file, and that a copy is handed directly to the plaintiff.

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.

The 26 November 2025 record scheduled the next hearing for 9 February 2026 at 10:30. This new source confirms that the scheduled hearing took place and ended at 10:51 with closure and an order to serve a written judgment. The scheduling entry and the record of actual attendance are distinct stages.

The hearing is closed. Serve a written copy of the judgment on the plaintiff and defendant. **Completed at 10:51.**

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 submission expressly invokes the court’s order of 26 November. That hearing record separately grants 15 days for a response and 30 days for archive documents possessed by CSR and relied upon by the plaintiff. The December inventory identifies what this response says it supplies; the linked hearing permits checking the actual scope of the archive order.

In accordance with the ruling of the Basic Court in Novi Sad, case no. **P2.1435/24**, of **26 November 2025**, the defendant provides documentation obtained from the archive, namely: 1. Copy of the file cover, **Miletić Cvita Milivoj**, registration no. **3871/79**, no. **UP 03-335/79**; 2. Foster-family questionnaire for **Julka Vizmet**; 3. Family-placement agreement no. **05-320/6**, of **25 April 1979**; 4. Copy of the decision of the Self-Managing Community of Interest for Social Protection in Novi Sad, no. **Up-3-355/79**, of **16 April 1979**; 5. Copy of the decision of the Self-Managing Community of Interest for Social Protection in Novi Sad, no. **Up-3-356/79**, of **5 July 1979**; 6. Contact and case-work monitoring sheet for **Miletić Milivoj**, no. **3871/79**; 7. Personal record of a social-protection service user, no. **3871**, of **10 April 1979**.