Source documents, PDFs, translations and annotated passages from the dossier.
Primary civil-register source for the original birth identity: Milivoj Miletić, born in Novi Sad on 28 June 1974, with Cvita Miletić recorded as mother and Croatian recorded as the mother’s narodnost. This is the starting point before the Vasić adoptive overwrite.
Primary civil-register baseline: Milivoj Miletić and mother Cvita Miletić before the Vasić and Petrović identity layers. This is the source identity later covered by institutional records.
Primary legal source and normative benchmark for assessing the disputed 1979 adoption, later identity substitution, and the forced assimilation imposed on a child of Hungarian-Croatian origin within a chain of institutional continuity borne today by the Republic of Serbia.
Central court-confirmed paternal-line record. The file identifies Lakatoš Pavle as Hungarian and repeatedly links Pavle / Pal Lakatoš, Cvita Miletić and their child/son through witness testimony, party statements, Pavle’s own statement, Kopljan Roža’s care statement and the court’s factual findings.
Death record that opens the inheritance and guardianship problem. Pavle’s death is not an isolated life event; it triggers the probate track in which Milivoj Miletić appears as son/heir before being cut out.
The package from 12 to 21 June 1979 shows accelerated expert validation of complete adoption: the social-work report, pedagogical opinion, psychological opinion, appointment of a special guardian and complete adoption are compressed into nine days. That tempo ends with a name change and the child’s civil-register rewriting.
The operative 21 June 1979 record by which minor Miletić Milivoj was fully adopted by Vasić Milorad and Gospava, renamed Vasić Milan, and routed to the registrar for entry of the adopters as parents. Read against the 1974 birth entry and P-1642/76, this is the administrative mechanism that overwrote the Croatian maternal and Hungarian paternal origin with the Vasić adoptive frame.
Confidential SIZ Novi Sad dossier for Miletić Milivoj. The document records a Pal/father trail, Cvita as visible mother, health insurance through the mother, and a healthy, cared-for child, while the formal father channel is left blank/unknown and the file moves toward adoption.
Helena Uzelac opens the Milivoj trace; the court requests guardianship; Miloš Lisica appears; Milivoj is accepted as heir with 1/4 share.
This is the Pervaz node in the inheritance face of identity substitution: the private attorney for the heirs uses the confidential full-adoption route and alleged prospective-adopter statements against the child's already recognized inheritance position. The court does not examine the source of official secrecy, does not separate the contaminated appellate material, and does not protect the child; it accepts the appeal as a lawful procedural basis.
Court file showing the collapse of the Vasić household, the first imposed Serbian adoptive frame created by the 1979 full adoption. The file does not merely record divorce: it makes the child the neutral trigger of marital breakdown, contradicts itself between adoption language and “born in the marriage” language, records Gospava’s mastectomy only as a support/work-incapacity issue, and omits the violence and domestic terror that would expose the 1979 placement as a child-protection failure.
The Kragujevac assessment is not a clean approval. The psychologist explicitly says that the adoption request should not be accepted and recommends foster care. The second adoption proceeds despite this professional objection and despite relying on Milorad Vasić’s contaminated consent source.
Milorad Vasić gives consent as “father” of Vasić Milan. That position is not biological or neutral; it derives from the contested 1979 full-adoption record that replaced Milivoj Miletić with Milan Vasić. The 1984 consent therefore becomes the operational bridge from the first identity cut to the second adoption.
CSR Novi Sad executes the second adoption through Vasić Milan, the identity produced by the contested 1979 full-adoption record. The proceeding does not return to Milivoj Miletić, Cvita Miletić, Pavle / Pal Lakatoš or the probate trace.
The civil-register extract after the second adoption seals Petrović Milan as the operative layer. It does not restore origin; it carries forward the chain Milivoj Miletić -> Vasić Milan -> Petrović Milan.
Ministry of Defence certificates showing military service in 1993, completion of service in 1996–1997, and war participation in 1999 under the Petrović identity produced after the second adoption.
Adoption records, registry acts, probate materials, and archival references documenting where biological continuity was cut, minority-origin identity was suppressed, and contradictions were carried forward into the present legal continuity of the Republic of Serbia.
On 9 March 2005, Ljiljana Ristić recommends stopping the search for Cvita Miletić and says that a meeting with her son should not take place. The report checks Novi Sad death records only from 1 June 1998, leaving the author’s stated 1997 death outside that period.
The author’s two emails of 15 November 2023, the prosecutor’s letter dated 20 November, and the official email transmitting that letter on 21 November. The package preserves what was reported and the written response.
Opening court filing challenging the 1979 full adoption as an unlawful act of identity substitution imposed on a child of Hungarian-Croatian origin, with continuing consequences borne within the legal continuity of the Republic of Serbia.
The court records the claim filed on 22 February 2024, declares that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction and orders referral to the Basic Court after finality.
Counsel requests urgent correction of the appeal instruction, referral to the Basic Court and delivery of a certified copy. The submission and court receipt stamp are dated 13 March 2024.
The Basic Court in Novi Sad summoned the plaintiff’s authorized representative to a main hearing on 2 April 2024 at 8:15 a.m., room 210/2, in the case for annulment of full adoption. The summons is dated 22 March 2024 and bears Judge Bojana Vujić’s name.
The non-public hearing record names Judge Bojana Vujić. The plaintiff is absent in person but represented by counsel; no one appears for the CSR and service of its summons is not shown. The panel postpones the hearing to 24 April at 11:00.
Maja Petrović, a CSR law graduate, appears without a power of attorney. Before Judge Bojana Vujić’s panel, counsel challenges jurisdiction and the finality stamp attributed to Higher Court judge Biljana Lepotić. The panel will decide the further course in writing.
In ruling P2.470/2024, the Basic Court in Novi Sad declares itself without subject-matter jurisdiction and orders the file sent to the Appellate Court to resolve the conflict of jurisdiction. Its reasoning expressly cites Article 28(1) of the 1976 Vojvodina Adoption Act: annulment of adoption is decided by the district court.
The Appellate Court panel of Aleksandra Pekez Kalinić, Vesna Bojović and Olivera Pejak Prokeš resolves the jurisdictional conflict in favour of the Basic Court. Its reasons recount the Vojvodina 1976 argument, then rely on a 1980 statute and the 2023 court-organization statute. The Basic Court receipt stamp is dated 30 August.
Milan Petrović attends in person; no one appears for the CSR despite the recorded summons to its representative. The Appellate Court’s R.22/24 ruling is handed to him. He asks for time to seek legal help and reports losing his job. The panel grants 30 days for a written submission and evidence concerning court fees.
The plaintiff sets out his written position after the 5 November order. He maintains his claim, requests and evidence, announces that he will notify the court of his chosen lawyer by year-end, and asks that no hearing be scheduled before that notice.
The plaintiff maintains his claim, acts without professional legal assistance and proposes “a settlement, which is very reasonable”. Maja Petrović defends the adoption under the 1976 Act while asking 30 days to obtain and study it; her statement gives both 1976 and 21 June 1979 for the ruling. On the parties’ joint proposal, the panel sets a two-year/12-hearing framework and schedules 26 March.
The author sends a detailed settlement proposal after the February hearing: recognition of the nullity of the 1979 adoption, restoration of original identity and continuation of paternity proceedings. He sets out his genetic and family origins, warns against continued violent assimilation and asks for a reply within seven days. CSR’s reception office confirms email receipt at 08:30 CET.
The author’s six-page analysis argues that his Croatian-Hungarian parentage and known paternal and maternal family relationships were erased through illegal adoption and forced assimilation. He sets out haplogroups, ethnicity estimates and four DNA matches, explains who the relatives are, and links restoration of identity to his settlement objective.
The plaintiff personally requests witnesses, divorce records and documents showing how he came under CSR jurisdiction. Maja Petrović opposes pre-adoption family-law-protection files and the divorce evidence, requests another 15 days for the Act and her position, and supplies the 2005 search report. The panel orders adoption documentation within 15 days and schedules 5 June.
The CSR asserts that the adoption met every statutory requirement, cites Articles 41, 4, 10, 30, 31 and 11 of the 1976 Act, and lists ten evidentiary items. It dismisses criticism of Gospava and Milorad Vasić’s suitability as coming from unqualified persons without statutory authority and as interpretation from a distance of 46 years. The heading gives 1 April; the closing text gives 7 May 2025.
The author says he attended at the scheduled time on 5 June. The judge told him orally that the CSR lawyer had broken her leg; he was shown no evidence of the reason, accepted 3 September and received no written document about the change.
Milan Petrović responds to the CSR’s submission, challenges its reversed party labels and failure to provide documentation, and argues backdating and the nullity of the full adoption. He cites the unanswered settlement proposal and expressly lists the 1976 Act as attachment 3.
The author compares the social worker’s, educational specialist’s and psychologist’s reports, alleging contradictions in biographies, schooling and the child’s status, formulaic findings and deliberate violations of the Adoption Act. A later separate correction withdraws the doubt about eighteen years of marriage.
The 28 August order cancels the 3 September hearing and sets 15 October at 10:30, 42 days later. The 27 August CSR request cites illness of an unnamed representative and the other representatives’ commitments.
On 3 September 2025 I came to the court for the scheduled hearing. There I received notice that it had been canceled, and I agreed to the postponement. I did not receive the written order at court. The envelope bears a postal stamp dated 2 September 2025. The postman delivered the order to my home on 4 September 2025.
The plaintiff records delivery on 4 September, after the canceled hearing, and requests evidence for the CSR representative’s absence and the court registry’s dispatch record. The six-page PDF includes the envelope, CSR request and cancellation order.
The record documents examination of the plaintiff, his written statement served on CSR, and fifteen days for further written evidence proposals. The hearing lasted from 10:30 to 11:35.
The plaintiff’s two-page statement sets out his qualifications of the 1979 and 1984 acts and their lifelong consequences. The hearing record confirms that Bojana Vujić received it and that a copy was given to the CSR representative.
Following the hearing of 15 October, the plaintiff seeks the complete adoption and preceding records, proof of Branislav Čolak’s authority and status, and examination of the original identity evidence. He reaffirms his 2 October requests and separates the law of 1979/1984 from CSR’s conduct in 2025.
Maja Petrović seeks time to respond to the plaintiff and retrieve earlier archive records. Bojana Vujić grants fifteen and thirty days; the next hearing is scheduled for 9 February 2026.
CSR defends the 1979 adoption, points to copies already attached to the claim and describes separate file storage instead of identifying the preceding acts. It does not dispute the contents or authenticity of Milorad’s 1984 consent record. The heading again reverses the parties. Dated 27 November; received by the Basic Court on 2 December 2025.
CSR lists archive documents and treats Vera’s statements about parentage and care as undisputed grounds for adoption. It dates the quotation to 6 April, whereas the confirmed transcription records 8 April; withdrawal of probate representation becomes a conclusion about relatives’ lack of care. The party labels are again reversed. Dated 22 December; received by the court on 24 December 2025.
The plaintiff answers CSR’s submission of 22 December, connects the probate and adoption records, and sets out his argument of nullity, violent assimilation and continuing institutional responsibility. The complete 75-page file preserves his detailed reasoning, historical facsimiles and accompanying transcriptions.
The P2.1435/24 record states that Milan Petrović maintains the claim, all submissions and all oral and written assertions, while Maja Petrović maintains the CSR’s opposition. Bojana Vujić’s panel closes the hearing at 10:51 and orders service of a written judgment. The author expressly states that nothing was read, contrary to two formulations in the record.
Judgment P2.1435/2024 dated 9 February 2026 rejects the claim for absolute nullity of full adoption. It accepts official documents because their authors were authorized and qualified, accepts the plaintiff’s testimony where it agrees with those documents, and rejects the proposed witnesses. Eight judgment pages and the postal envelope are supplied in full.
Milan Petrović challenges the entire judgment signed by Bojana Vujić, seeking reversal or a retrial. He identifies unanswered arguments from his June, October and January submissions, the absence of a demonstrated basis for replacing Cvita’s consent, Vera Radovanović’s accumulated roles and the unexplained second adoption in 1984.
The panel of Branka Perc, Aleksandra Pekez Kalinić and Marko Prentović affirms dismissal of the claim to annul the 1979 full adoption. Its reasons cite Article 31 while describing Article 30, without selecting between paragraphs 1 and 4. The judgment is dated 22 April; the Basic Court receipt stamp is dated 30 April 2026.
Milan Petrović, through advocate Nikolaj Petronijević, challenges judgment Gž2 211/26. The revision addresses the confusion of Articles 30 and 31, the formula that conditions were fulfilled “in any event”, Cvita’s missing consent, Vera Radovanović’s combined roles, Pavle’s acknowledgment and the second adoption despite Article 40.
Milan Petrović asks SVM for an official position on the forced assimilation, two illegal adoptions and severance of his Hungarian paternal identity described in his email, and announces that the response or its absence will be recorded.
The Prime Minister’s Office informs Milan Lakatoš Petrović that his inquiry is being referred to the Ministry Responsible for Social Relations and Culture for further handling, under file registration number ID_ME-IF/332/2/2026.
The Prime Minister’s Office forwards the inquiry to the ministry, with the author copied, under incoming registration number ME_ERK/16706/2026. The four-page record includes his complete English and Hungarian reminder sent on 19 May 2026.
Official Gazette RS 72/2011, 49/2013 (Constitutional Court decision), 74/2013 (Constitutional Court decision), 55/2014, 87/2018, 18/2020 and 10/2023 (other act). Text of the 98-page PDF published by the Supreme Court; the court names printed in that version are retained.
Constitution of 2006, Articles 78 and 79. Full Serbian parliamentary PDF, 67 pages; selected articles translated from Serbian.
20 November 1989. Articles 8 and 30; full OHCHR English PDF, 15 pages.
Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia 10/2023, adopted 9 February 2023; official court-hosted PDF.
Strasbourg, 5 November 1992, ETS No. 148. This reader contains the complete Articles 7–14 (Parts II and III); the linked official PDF contains the whole Charter. Part III operates through the undertakings selected by each State under Article 2(2).
Convention of 1950, amended by Protocols 11, 14 and 15. Selected Articles 6, 8 and 14; full English PDF, 34 pages.
Rome, 4 November 2000. Articles 1–3; the complete protocol is included in the full ECHR PDFs.
Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia 18/2005, 72/2011 (other Act), 6/2015. Ministry PDF; edition cited in the 2024–2026 case file.
1 February 1995. Articles 5 and 10–14; treaty No. 37548, printed pages 243–276 of complete UNTS volume 2151.
9 December 1948. Full Article II; unchanged UNTS Convention PDF, 25 pages.
16 December 1966. Article 27; full OHCHR English PDF, 26 pages.
21 December 1965. Articles 2 and 5; unchanged UNTS Convention PDF, 65 pages.
Official Gazette RS 40/2015; Article 4 unchanged by the 2023 amendments. Both official PDFs are provided.