Request for SVM’s position on the documented forced assimilation of a child of Hungarian origin
Full translation of the supplied one-page email sent on 16 April 2026. The descriptions of forced assimilation, two illegal adoptions and the identity consequences are the author’s statements, preserved in full. Section headings identifying source pages are editorial.
Source page 1
Subject: Question about SVM’s position on a documented case of the forced assimilation of a child of Hungarian origin
From: Milan Petrovic ([email protected])
To: [email protected]
Date: Thursday, 16 April 2026 at 11:53 AM GMT+2
Dear Sir or Madam,
I am writing to you not for political support or a ceremonial reply, but to raise a clear and recorded question concerning the very purpose of a party that presents itself as a protector of the rights of Hungarians in Serbia.
My case is not a matter of impression or private interpretation. It is a documented case of severing the identity of a child of Hungarian origin through two illegal adoptions, in 1979 and 1984, with the administrative suppression of the paternal line, language and inheritance position.
There are records confirming the concrete paternal trace of Pavle / Pál Lakatoš. There are also records showing how that trace was severed in favour of a construct suited to full adoption and the replacement of identity. There is also the present judgment of the Basic Court in Novi Sad in case P2.1435/24, in which the key contradictions were not clarified; instead, the internal documentation of the authority whose conduct was challenged was effectively accepted.
This case can no longer be described as invisible or unknown. It has already been presented in the public sphere, including broadcasts on national frequencies, where I did not speak from the standpoint of a sentimental narrative, but repeatedly and explicitly set out the identity facts and the forensic foundation of the case. This therefore ceases to be a question of the availability of information and becomes a question of the political will to take a position on it.
In that respect, a simple question arises: how is it possible that a party which has spoken on behalf of the Hungarian community for decades has not visibly addressed a case of this kind, concerning not symbolism but the documented severance of one child’s Hungarian paternal line, linguistic continuity and inheritance position?
Does SVM consider Hungarian identity important only as long as it remains within the ceremonial, folkloric and politically harmless sphere, and not when documented forced assimilation emerges from records, minutes, civil registry entries, probate traces, the DNA line and judicial contradictions?
It would be natural for me to address you in Hungarian. I do not do so because, through a combination of deliberate and, to put it mildly, unlawful circumstances, that language was cut off from me at the age of five, through precisely what I am writing to you about here. That qualification has yet to receive its exact term. For now, it is sufficiently clear that language was severed together with identity.
I put this question to you consciously and deliberately, because the entire case, with the judicial, archival and forensic material, will be publicly examined and published in several languages, including Hungarian, as part of the Origin Dossier project.
Your reply, as well as any absence of a reply, will be recorded as part of the public documentation of the case.
Respectfully,
Milan Petrović
born as Milivoj Miletić
known until the age of five in his father’s environment as Palika Lakatoš
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/milan-lakato%C5%A1-petrovi%C4%87-90876595/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pmilance
Comments on source passages (5)
What the author asks SVM to address
The email of 16 April is addressed to [email protected]. The author asks SVM for a clear, recorded position on the protection of Hungarian identity in his concrete case. He says he seeks neither political support nor a ceremonial reply.
PDF p. 1
Open related document
Open timeline event
1979 and 1984 — the question put to SVM
The author describes the two adoptions of 1979 and 1984 as illegal and the severance of identity, paternal line, language and inheritance position as documented forced assimilation. He asks how a party representing Hungarians in Serbia responds to that concrete loss of identity and family continuity.
PDF p. 1
Open related document
Open timeline event
Paternal evidence and judgment P2.1435/24
The author identifies Pavle / Pál Lakatoš and argues that judgment P2.1435/24 accepted internal records of the authority whose conduct he challenged without resolving key contradictions. The linked first-instance judgment can be read alongside his criticism of the treatment of the paternal evidence.
PDF p. 1
Open related document
Open timeline event
Why the author writes to SVM in Serbian
The author says it would be natural to address the party in Hungarian. He explains that he cannot do so because deliberate and unlawful circumstances severed him from that language in childhood. He places language loss alongside the loss of identity described in the same letter.
PDF p. 1
Open related document
Open timeline event
April’s request and May’s report of no reply
On 16 April the author announces that a reply or its absence will become part of the public documentation. In the 19 May message embedded in the September forwarding, he says SVM did not respond. The supplied correspondence contains no later SVM reply.
PDF p. 1
Open related document
Open timeline event