Appellate judgment Gž2 211/26 — 22 April 2026

Full translation of the supplied four-page Appellate Court judgment. The panel dismisses the appeal and affirms the first-instance judgment. The judgment is dated 22 April 2026; the Basic Court receipt stamp is dated 30 April 2026. That stamp is not proof of service on the appellant. The source’s statutory-numbering inconsistency is preserved; the source says Article 31 where it then describes the conditions from Article 30.

Original searchable judgment — 4 pages

Source page 1

Republic of Serbia
APPELLATE COURT IN NOVI SAD
Gž2 211/26
22 April 2026
Novi Sad

Receipt stamp: Basic Court in Novi Sad — received on 30 April 2026. Other visible form fields are unfilled; parts of the stamp are cropped.

IN THE NAME OF THE PEOPLE

The Appellate Court in Novi Sad, in a panel consisting of judges Branka Perc, presiding judge, Aleksandra Pekez Kalinić and Marko Prentović, panel members, in the legal matter of the plaintiff MILAN PETROVIĆ of Kragujevac, Kraljevačkog bataljona Street 110, JMBG 2806974800030, against the defendant CENTRE FOR SOCIAL WORK OF THE CITY OF NOVI SAD, Zmaj Ognjena Vuka Street 13–17, registration number 08154902, represented by Maja Petrović, a graduate lawyer employed by the defendant, concerning annulment of a full adoption, deciding on the plaintiff’s appeal against the judgment of the Basic Court in Novi Sad P2 1435/2024 of 9 February 2026, at the panel session held on 22 April 2026, delivered the following

JUDGMENT

DISMISSES the appeal and AFFIRMS the judgment of the Basic Court in Novi Sad P2 1435/2024 of 9 February 2026.

Reasons

The first-instance judgment dismissed the claim seeking annulment, as absolutely void, of the full adoption established and declared by the decision of the Self-Managing Community of Interest for Social Protection Novi Sad, no. UP. 03-507/79 of 21 June 1979 in Novi Sad, by which Vasić Milorad, born on 15 February 1941 in Osječani, Municipality of Doboj, and Vasić Gospava, born on 21 August 1932 in D. Klakar, Municipality of Doboj, both residing in Budisava, Petefi Šandora Street 52, adopt the minor Miletić Milivoj and by which the adopted minor Miletić Milivoje receives the new name Vasić Milan; and seeking an order that the defendant, immediately upon receipt of the judgment, issue a decision annulling the decision of the Self-Managing Community of Interest for Social Protection Novi Sad, no. UP. 03-507/79 of 21 June 1979, authorising a subsequent entry in the birth register of the details of the adopters Vasić Milorad and Vasić Gospava of Budisava as the parents of the fully adopted child, the plaintiff here, and that annulment of that decision restore the original birth entry of the fully adopted child, the plaintiff here. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs of the proceedings.

The plaintiff lodged a timely appeal against that judgment, challenging it in its entirety on all grounds provided by law.

The appeal is unfounded.

Source page 2

Examining the challenged judgment within the limits of the grounds of appeal and ex officio under Article 386 paragraph 3 of the Civil Procedure Act, this court finds that it was delivered without the substantial violations of civil-procedure provisions referred to in Article 374 paragraph 2 items 1–3, 5, 7 and 9 of the same Act, and that substantive law was correctly applied to a fully and correctly established factual situation.

According to the first-instance court’s findings, the plaintiff was born on 28 June 1974 in Novi Sad as Milivoj Miletić, and his biological mother was Cvita Miletić, born on 23 March 1931 in the village of Bila Vlaka in Benkovac, SR Croatia, with whom the plaintiff lived briefly after his birth, when she abandoned him. After that, the plaintiff lived with Pavle Lakatoš, but it was never judicially established that he was his father. Pavle Lakatoš died on 7 November 1978, which was not disputed between the litigants.

By decision of the Self-Managing Community of Interest for Social Protection Novi Sad Up-03-335/79 of 16 April 1979, the plaintiff was placed with the foster family of Julka Vizmeg. The decision stated that the plaintiff’s mother was at an unknown place of residence and that his father was unknown, and that he had thus been left without parental care.

On 21 June 1979, at the premises of the Self-Managing Community of Interest for Social Protection Novi Sad, as the authorised guardianship body under Article 1 of the Decision entrusting guardianship-body functions to the Self-Managing Community of Interest Novi Sad, Social Protection Novi Sad (Official Gazette of the Municipality of Novi Sad, no. 8/77), a record was drawn up of the full adoption, Up. 03-507/79, of the minor Milivoj Miletić by the adopters Milorad Vasić and Gospava Vasić of Budisava. The record stated, among other things, that the guardianship body had established in the preceding procedure that all statutory conditions for full adoption were met; that the adoption complied with Articles 2 and 4 of the Law on Adoption; that the minor Milivoj’s mother had for a long time been at an unknown place of residence and, without justified reasons, was not fulfilling her parental duty; that a special-purpose guardian, Vera Radovanović, had therefore been appointed and gave consent to the adoption; that there were no impediments under Articles 10 and 11; that a favourable opinion under Article 15 had been given; and that the adopters wished the adoptee to bear their family name and to be called Milan Vasić. Full adoption was declared, and it was recorded that the report would be sent to the competent registrar for entry of the adopters’ details as parents.

On the same day, the Self-Managing Community of Interest for Social Protection Novi Sad issued a decision authorising a subsequent entry in the birth register for the fully adopted child, minor Milivoj Miletić, with the details of the father and mother, Milorad and Gospava Vasić.

Vasić Milorad and Gospava married on 21 January 1962. On 5 June 1979, the Municipal Court in Novi Sad issued certificates that no investigation was being conducted against them and that they had not been indicted for an offence punishable by imprisonment. On 6 June 1979, “Novograp” issued a certificate that Milorad was its employee and that in the preceding year he had earned an average personal income of 6,500.00 dinars. On 4 and 11 June 1979, medical certificates were issued concluding that Milorad and Gospava were medically fit to adopt and that there were no health impediments to performing parental duties. For the purposes of full adoption, psychologist Cvetko Ratković prepared an opinion concluding that Milorad and Gospava would properly raise the adopted child and that the child would live in an environment favourable to proper psychophysical development. Social worker Vera Radovanović issued a report concluding that, on the basis of her examination of the available documentation and the information collected about Milorad and Gospava’s social and moral status and their material and housing conditions, she considered that the adoption should be approved. Educational specialist Milosava Gudelj concluded that, comprehensively

Source page 3

considering all circumstances, with particular attention to the upbringing and educational conditions for the child’s development in the adopters’ family, she considered the adoption justified and expedient, meaning that personal and social interests existed for its establishment.

By decision of the Municipal Court in Novi Sad O 196/79 of 23 November 1979, the plaintiff, then a minor, was declared heir to the late Pavle Lakatoš. An appeal was lodged against that decision because the plaintiff did not fall within the class of statutory or testamentary heirs, and it was set aside by the decision of the Higher Court in Novi Sad Gž. 11/80 of 9 January 1980.

The evidence taken and accepted by the first-instance court, and the results of the evidentiary proceedings, show that Milorad and Gospava Vasić’s marriage was dissolved during 1982. Gospava Vasić died on 19 April 1983. Before the Centre for Social Work of the City of Novi Sad on 12 September 1984, Milorad Vasić stated that he had been compelled to place the plaintiff, then a minor, with a foster family in Irig in August 1983, that he had maintained no contact with the child since then, and that he consented to giving the plaintiff up for adoption, which he did not wish to attend.

By the record of the Centre for Social Work of the City of Novi Sad Up. 02-987/84 of 26 September 1984, the plaintiff was adopted by Periša Petrović and Georgina Petrović, and it was determined that he would henceforth bear the surname Petrović.

On the basis of the facts thus established, and referring to Articles 4, 10–12, 30, 31 and 41 of the Law on Adoption of the Socialist Autonomous Province of Vojvodina (Official Gazette of SAPV, no. 24/76), the first-instance court finds the claim unfounded.

Reviewing the assessment of evidence in this case, this court finds no reason whatsoever to doubt the correctness of the facts established by the first-instance court according to its free conviction. It therefore considers that, contrary to the grounds of appeal, the first-instance court correctly and fully established all facts material to adjudication of this legal matter, in accordance with Articles 8 and 229 of the Civil Procedure Act and Article 205 of the Family Law.

Article 41 of the Law on Adoption of the Socialist Autonomous Province of Vojvodina (Official Gazette of SAPV, no. 24/76) provides that a full adoption is void if, when it was established, the conditions prescribed in Article 4 paragraphs 3 and 4, Article 10 paragraph 1, Article 30 paragraphs 1, 2 and 4, and Article 31 were not fulfilled, or while the reasons under Article 11 prohibiting the establishment of adoption exist, or if the prior consent under Article 12 of that law does not exist. During the proceedings and in his grounds of appeal, the plaintiff principally argues that the conditions under Article 31 of that law were not met for the establishment of his full adoption on 21 June 1979 by the adopters Milorad and Gospava Vasić. This provision, in paragraph 1, provides that a child under five years of age may be fully adopted if the parents are not alive or are unknown, or have abandoned the child and their whereabouts have not been established even after six months from abandonment. Paragraph 4 provides that if one parent is not alive or is unknown, a child under five years of age may also be fully adopted with the prior consent of the other parent. In this court’s view, it was not disputed during the proceedings that Pavle Lakatoš, whom the plaintiff claims to be his biological father, died on 7 November 1978, hence before the full adoption at issue was established. At the same time, despite all the facts to which the plaintiff points—his life with Pavle and the statements in the divorce proceedings of the late Pavle and his wife Veronika—the late Pavle Lakatoš did not acknowledge paternity, nor was it established by a judicial decision. Nor does the fact that the plaintiff was declared heir to the late Pavle Lakatoš by the Municipal Court in Novi Sad’s decision O 196/79 of 23 November 1979 lead to a different conclusion, since the case-file material, the results of the evidentiary

Source page 4

proceedings and the plaintiff’s own testimony show that, after that decision was set aside, a new decision was issued which did not establish that status, although the court had sought information from the guardianship body. Therefore, it could not in any event be considered that, when the full adoption was established on 21 June 1979, the plaintiff had a living or known father. On the other hand, in the adoption proceedings the guardianship body recorded that the plaintiff’s mother had for a long time been at an unknown place of residence. In his testimony the plaintiff stated that he had seen his mother several times in childhood and never thereafter, and that he had lived with the late Pavle until his death. From that it follows that the plaintiff’s mother could not have been available to the guardianship body to consent to adoption. This is also supported by the circumstance that even years later the guardianship body could not find any information about the plaintiff’s mother. Thus the plaintiff’s grounds of appeal alleging that it is unclear whether his case was brought under paragraph 1 or paragraph 4 of the cited provision are not acceptable, bearing in mind that, in the situation described, the conditions for adoption relating to the status of the plaintiff’s parents were in any event met. The first-instance court correctly finds that the guardianship body established fulfilment of all the other conditions necessary for full adoption, which also concern assessment of the prospective adopters by professionals—an educational specialist, psychologist, social worker and doctor. This court finds no inconsistencies in their findings, and the grounds of appeal advanced in that respect are not acceptable.

Furthermore, given that the plaintiff’s adopters’ marriage was dissolved, that his adoptive mother Gospava Vasić died on 19 April 1983, and that Milorad Vasić stated before the guardianship body on 12 September 1984 that he consented to the plaintiff being given up for adoption, the plaintiff was adopted by Periša and Georgina Petrović on 26 September 1984; the validity of that adoption is not the subject of these proceedings. Accordingly, taking account of all the circumstances and the chronology from the plaintiff’s birth to the establishment of the adoption on 26 September 1984, this court states that there are no grounds to declare the full adoption established on 21 June 1979 void.

The decision on the costs of the proceedings was made through the correct application of Article 207 of the Family Law; those costs were not even challenged by specific grounds of appeal.

As the plaintiff did not submit a claim for reimbursement of the costs of the appellate proceedings, the procedural conditions for deciding on them were absent under Article 163 paragraphs 1–4 of the Civil Procedure Act.

For the stated reasons, and because the other grounds of appeal, which this court also assessed, did not affect the correctness and lawfulness of the challenged judgment, applying Article 390 of the Civil Procedure Act, the court decided as set out in the operative part.

PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE PANEL
Branka Perc, signed

[Judge’s signature and court certification mark visible.]