Record of the main hearing — P2.470/24, 24 April 2024

Source

This is a complete English translation of the two-page hearing record from the supplied photographs. The plaintiff’s lawyer’s name is marked [redacted]; the public PDF is a redacted copy. All other names are retained: Judge Bojana Vujić, the panel members, the court clerk, the plaintiff, and Maja Petrović, a law graduate at the CSR whom the record says appeared without a power of attorney. Biljana Lepotić is named in counsel’s statement as the Higher Court judge.

The hearing is recorded as not public, from 11:00 to 11:15. The plaintiff appeared in person with his authorized representative. The record contains her statement concerning the defendant’s lack of a power of attorney, jurisdiction and the earlier ruling, followed by the panel’s ruling that the court will decide the further course of proceedings in writing.

Publicly redacted two-page source PDF

PDF page 1 — Complete translation

P2.470/24

RECORD OF THE MAIN HEARING

Drawn up on 24. 04. 2024

before the Basic Court in Novi Sad

Presiding judge:
BOJANA VUJIĆ

Panel members — lay judges:
Ninkov Mirjana
Ivana Đurđević

Court clerk:
TATJANA NIKOLIĆ

Plaintiff: PETROVIĆ MILAN
Defendant: CSR NOVI SAD
Subject of the dispute: other

Start at 11:00 a.m.
The hearing is not public.

The presiding judge opens the main hearing, announces the subject to be heard and establishes that the following have appeared:

For the plaintiff: in person with his authorized representative [redacted], a lawyer of Novi Sad.

For the defendant: for the defendant, Maja Petrović, a law graduate at the CSR, without a power of attorney.

Of the other summoned persons, the following have not appeared: [field not completed]

Standard form notice

*) In small-claims proceedings, in addition to the information under Article 118, paragraph 1, this record must contain:

1. statements concerning the parties of greater significance, particularly those acknowledging the claim in whole or in part, waiving the claim or an appeal, or amending or withdrawing the claim;
2. the essential substance of the evidence taken;
3. decisions against which an appeal is permitted and which have been pronounced at the main hearing;
4. whether the parties were present when the judgment was pronounced and, if present, whether they were instructed on the conditions under which they may lodge an appeal.

To enter the necessary information in the record under the Civil Procedure Act and the court’s practice, use the following blank pages of the record; if those are insufficient, add separate sheets as attachments.

PDF page 2 — Complete translation

It is recorded that the plaintiff’s authorized representative asks the court not to hold today’s hearing, given that Maja Petrović, the CSR law graduate who has appeared, has done so without a power of attorney. She proposes that the court decide the plaintiff’s objection to subject-matter jurisdiction on all the grounds stated in the submission dated 01. 04. 2024.

We maintain all our grounds for objecting to the subject-matter jurisdiction of the Basic Court in Novi Sad and propose that our objection be decided by a separate ruling. After that ruling is served upon us, the case file should be sent to the Court of Appeal in Novi Sad for resolution of the jurisdictional conflict.

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.

We sent Higher Court judge Biljana Lepotić a submission on 13. 03. 2024, requesting correction of the ruling of the addressed court, P.98/2024 of 26. 02. 2024. In it, we set out and explained in detail why we consider that the judge handling the case should correct that ruling’s instruction on legal remedy and its date of finality. Yet, as of today, she has not responded to that submission. Instead, she sent the file to the Basic Court in Novi Sad for further proceedings, together with the ruling declaring a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, case number P.97/2024 of 27. 02. 2024, upon which she placed the wrong date of finality, 20. 03. 2024.

We consider that the Basic Court in Novi Sad lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to proceed in this legal matter, and we maintain our objection in full. We propose that the Basic Court in Novi Sad issue a ruling declaring itself to lack subject-matter jurisdiction and refer the case to the Court of Appeal in Novi Sad for a decision on the jurisdictional conflict.

The panel makes the following

RULING

The court will decide the further course of proceedings in writing.

Completed at 11:15 a.m.

Court clerk — parties — presiding judge

[Printed page number: 2.]

Editorial note

This note is not part of the hearing record. Counsel’s statement on page 2 first refers to P.98/24 of 26 February, then P.98/2024 of 26 February, and later P.97/2024 of 27 February. All case references and dates are retained as printed; the last reference has not been silently corrected to match the earlier P.98/2024 ruling. The statements about the wrong instruction, the date of finality and the lack of a response to the 13 March request belong to counsel’s recorded statement. The panel’s ruling at the end concerns deciding the further course of proceedings in writing.