Higher Court in Novi Sad P.98/2024 — Judge Dr Biljana Lepotić's ruling on jurisdiction, 26 February 2024

The timeline opens the ruling of 26 February 2024 declaring the Higher Court without subject-matter jurisdiction. Transfer to the Basic Court is ordered only after the ruling becomes final; this source does not decide the merits of the adoption challenge.

The Higher Court in Novi Sad declares that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to proceed further in this legal matter.

The ruling identifies the claim received on 22 February 2024 and its request to annul the 1979 full adoption. It is the next procedural act in the same claim, not a new lawsuit or a judgment on its merits.

On 22 February 2024, the plaintiff Milan Petrović of Kragujevac, through counsel, filed with this Court a statement of claim against the defendant Centre for Social Work of the City of Novi Sad, of Novi Sad, seeking annulment of full adoption.

The request identifies the Higher Court ruling of 26 February 2024 and states that counsel received it on 4 March. It contests the 15-day appeal instruction and requests correction and urgent transfer; this is the subsequent party submission concerning that ruling.

By its Ruling P.98/2024 of 26 February 2024, received by the plaintiff's counsel on 4 March 2024, the above Court declared that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to proceed in this legal matter. It decided to transfer the case file, after the ruling became final, to the Basic Court in Novi Sad for further proceedings, considering that court to have subject-matter and territorial jurisdiction.

The 26 February Higher Court ruling declared lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and ordered referral after finality. This later Basic Court summons names the full-adoption-annulment matter under P2.470/24. It is linked as the next procedural source; it does not establish the precise date when the earlier ruling became final or the referral was completed.

**BASIC COURT IN NOVI SAD** Dated **22. 03. 2024** **P2.470/24** ### SUMMONS TO THE MAIN HEARING **[redacted], lawyer** of Novi Sad is summoned as **the plaintiff’s authorized representative** to appear on **02. 04. 2024 at 8:15 a.m.** at this court, room number **210/2**, in the legal matter of the plaintiff **MILAN PETROVIĆ** of Kragujevac against the defendant **CENTRE FOR SOCIAL WORK** of Novi Sad, concerning **annulment of full adoption**.

The ruling expressly confirms receipt of the existing claim on 22 February 2024. This supports day precision for the unchanged timeline-6;20 February is the power-of-attorney date in the claim, a different procedural fact.

On 22 February 2024, the plaintiff Milan Petrović of Kragujevac, through counsel, filed with this Court a statement of claim against the defendant Centre for Social Work of the City of Novi Sad, of Novi Sad, seeking annulment of full adoption.

R.22/24 expressly recounts the Higher Court’s P.98/2024 ruling of 26 February, its declaration of lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and subsequent referral to the Basic Court. It identifies the Higher Court’s reliance on Article 24(2) of the court-organization statute and Article 274 of the Family Act. Linking the original ruling allows comparison with the Appellate Court’s account and final jurisdictional decision.

By ruling **P.98/2024 of 26 February 2024**, the Higher Court in Novi Sad declared itself without subject-matter jurisdiction to proceed in this legal matter and, after the ruling became final, referred the case file to the Basic Court in Novi Sad, as the court with subject-matter and territorial jurisdiction, for further proceedings. It relied on **Article 24(2) of the applicable Act on the Organization of Courts**, in conjunction with **Article 274 of the Family Act**. In support of its decision, that court stated that the particular case was a family dispute brought for annulment of full adoption, to which Article 24(2) of the Act on the Organization of Courts must be applied, while Article 25 of the same Act prescribes the Higher Court’s jurisdiction in family disputes only in cases contesting or establishing paternity or maternity. The applicable Family Act, as a special law, does not prescribe the Higher Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction for this particular type of dispute, but only the court’s territorial 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 24 April record preserves counsel’s express criticism of Biljana Lepotić’s P.98/24 ruling of 26 February: she disputed the 15-day appeal instruction and the stamp stating finality on 20 March, invoking Article 17(4) of the Civil Procedure Act. These are counsel’s recorded statements; the original ruling provides the document being challenged.

We particularly emphasize that Higher Court judge Biljana Lepotić issued the ruling dated 26. 02. 2024, case number **P.98/24**, upon which she placed a stamp stating that the decision became final on **20. 03. 2024**, although the instruction on legal remedy stated that an appeal against the ruling was permitted to the Court of Appeal in Novi Sad within 15 days of service, through this court. That instruction on legal remedy is wrong: under Article 17, paragraph 4, of the Civil Procedure Act, no appeal is permitted against a ruling by which the Higher Court declares itself to lack subject-matter jurisdiction to proceed further in this legal matter.