Author’s account: notice at court on 3 September 2025 and postal delivery on 4 September

The author states that he came to court on 3 September 2025, received notice of cancellation and agreed to the postponement. He expressly states that the postman brought the written order to his home on 4 September and reports a 2 September postal stamp. The event marks his court arrival; next-day delivery remains attributed to his account.

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 order dated 28 August cancels 3 September and sets 15 October. The author distinguishes notice at court on 3 September from postal delivery of the written order at home on 4 September; he reports a 2 September postal stamp. The court document establishes its own text and date, while his account supplies these notice and delivery details. His later agreement did not cause the earlier order. The supporting envelope separately confirms the court sender, case reference and 2 September postal stamp; it has no printed 4 September date or completed delivery-signature field.

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. I am legally untrained and represent myself. I did not know how such matters are justified. I agreed, feeling that I could not influence the change. I experienced this as double standards: the CSR can do this, but I cannot.

This dated written submission recounts being informed at court on 3 September and delivery on 4 September, matching the author’s separately recorded account. The postal stamp independently supports 2 September; the later delivery date remains his account.

- That morning I saw no notice for this case on the court’s noticeboard; after enquiring at the court, I was informed that the hearing had been postponed because of “health reasons affecting the defendant’s representative”. - The court’s order/notice is dated 28 August 2025, bears a Novi Sad postal postmark of 2 September 2025, and was delivered to me on 4 September 2025 (a photocopy of the envelope is attached).