First-instance judgment: Bojana Vujić dismisses the annulment claim; disputed reasoning and rejected witnesses

The judgment follows the closed hearing concluded on 9 February 2026 and dismisses the quoted claim. The event identifies the actual decision date; the later postal stamp and receipt remain separate. The complete ten-page source is available for checking the operative wording.

The Basic Court in Novi Sad, sitting as a panel composed of Judge **Bojana Vujić**, as presiding judge, and lay judges Mirjana Ninkov and Jelena Grujić, as panel members, in the legal matter of plaintiff **MILAN PETROVIĆ**, personal identification number: 2806974800030, of Kragujevac, Kraljevačkog bataljona Street no. 110, against defendant **CENTRE FOR SOCIAL WORK OF THE CITY OF NOVI SAD**, of Novi Sad, Zmaj ognjena vuka Street nos. 13–17, registration number: 08154902, concerning annulment of full adoption, following the oral, closed main hearing concluded on **9 February 2026**, rendered the following: **JUDGMENT** The plaintiff’s claim, which reads: > “The plaintiff’s claim is upheld as well-founded. > > The full adoption established and declared by the decision of the Self-Managing Community of Interest for Social Welfare Novi Sad, no. UP.03-507/79 of 21 June 1979, in Novi Sad, whereby Vasić Milorad, born on 15 February 1941 in Osiječani, Municipality of Doboj, and Vasić Gospava, born on 21 August 1932 in D. Klakar, Municipality of Doboj, both residing in Budisava, Petefi Šandora Street no. 52, adopt the minor Miletić Milivoj, and whereby the adopted minor Miletić Mulivoje receives the new name Vasić Milan, is annulled as absolutely void. > > The defendant is ordered, immediately upon receipt of this judgment, to issue a decision annulling the decision of the Self-Managing Community of Interest for Social Welfare Novi Sad, no. UP.03-507/79 of 21 June 1979, authorizing a subsequent entry in the register of births of the particulars of adopters Vasić Milorad and Vasić Gospava, of Budisava, as the parents of the fully adopted child, the plaintiff in these proceedings, so that annulment of that decision restores the first birth registration of the fully adopted child, the plaintiff in these proceedings. ## Source page 2 > The defendant is ordered to reimburse the plaintiff in full for the costs of these civil proceedings, whatever their amount, together with statutory default interest from the date of enforceability until payment, all within 15 days from the date on which the judgment becomes final, under threat of compulsory enforcement.” **— is dismissed.**

The judgment quotes the relief sought in the claim before dismissing it. The original claim sets out why the author seeks annulment for absolute nullity and restoration of his birth identity. Linking the two allows the requested measures to be distinguished from the court’s operative result.

The plaintiff’s claim, which reads: > “The plaintiff’s claim is upheld as well-founded. > > The full adoption established and declared by the decision of the Self-Managing Community of Interest for Social Welfare Novi Sad, no. UP.03-507/79 of 21 June 1979, in Novi Sad, whereby Vasić Milorad, born on 15 February 1941 in Osiječani, Municipality of Doboj, and Vasić Gospava, born on 21 August 1932 in D. Klakar, Municipality of Doboj, both residing in Budisava, Petefi Šandora Street no. 52, adopt the minor Miletić Milivoj, and whereby the adopted minor Miletić Mulivoje receives the new name Vasić Milan, is annulled as absolutely void. > > The defendant is ordered, immediately upon receipt of this judgment, to issue a decision annulling the decision of the Self-Managing Community of Interest for Social Welfare Novi Sad, no. UP.03-507/79 of 21 June 1979, authorizing a subsequent entry in the register of births of the particulars of adopters Vasić Milorad and Vasić Gospava, of Budisava, as the parents of the fully adopted child, the plaintiff in these proceedings, so that annulment of that decision restores the first birth registration of the fully adopted child, the plaintiff in these proceedings. ## Source page 2 > The defendant is ordered to reimburse the plaintiff in full for the costs of these civil proceedings, whatever their amount, together with statutory default interest from the date of enforceability until payment, all within 15 days from the date on which the judgment becomes final, under threat of compulsory enforcement.” **— is dismissed.**

This ruling affirms the Basic Court’s judgment P2 1435/2024 of 9 February 2026. The link permits comparison of the first-instance findings and claim quoted there with the appellate panel’s new reasons and actual operative outcome.

**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.

This paragraph states which parts of the plaintiff’s testimony the judgment accepts. The final-hearing package separately contains the court record and the author’s account disputing both recorded readings. They permit a direct comparison with the judgment’s later characterization of his testimony, without attributing the later author account to the court record.

The court evaluated the plaintiff’s testimony as a party to the civil proceedings and accepted the parts that were relevant to deciding this legal matter and the parts that were consistent with the evidence to which the court had given credence.

The judgment states that Pavle’s paternity was never judicially determined. The earlier divorce file contains his personal acknowledgment of a son with Cvita, witness testimony and the judgment’s factual finding that he had a child with her. That comparison distinguishes recorded acknowledgment and findings from a separate operative paternity judgment.

The court established that the plaintiff was born on 28 June 1974 in Novi Sad as Milivoj Miletić and that his biological mother was Cvita Miletić, born on 23 March 1931 in Bila Vlaka, Benkovac, SR Croatia, on the basis of the extract from the City of Novi Sad register of births maintained for the Novi Sad registration district, under serial number 2512 for 1974, and the social worker’s report in the search procedure for Miletić Cvita of 9 March 2005. The court established that, after his birth, the plaintiff lived briefly with his mother, who then abandoned him, and that he subsequently lived with Pavle Lakatoš, on the basis of the contact and casework tracking sheet for Miletić Milivoj, no. 3871/79. The court established that **it had never been judicially determined that Pavle Lkatoš was the plaintiff’s father** on the basis of the plaintiff’s testimony, which was also corroborated by the written documentation submitted. The court established the contents of the Self-Managing Community of Interest for Social Welfare Novi Sad decision no. Up-03-335/79 of 16 April 1979, the full-adoption record no. Up.03-507/79 of 21 June 1979 and the Self-Managing Community of Interest for Social Welfare Novi Sad decision no. Up.03-507/79 of 21 June 1979 by reading those documents. The court established that Vasić Milorad and Tomić Gospava had married on 21 January 1962 in Petrovaradin, and that Gospava had taken the surname Vasić upon marrying, on the basis of the extract from the Municipality of Novi Sad register of marriages maintained under serial number 1 for 1962. The court established the contents of Municipal Court in Novi Sad certificate case no. Kr.II1353/79 of 5 June 1979, Municipal Court in Novi Sad certificate case no. Kr.II1354/79 of 5 June 1979, the “Novograp” certificate no. 02-17/243 of 6 June 1979, the medical certificate, protocol no. 805 of 4 June 1979 and the medical certificate, protocol no. 9/7 of 11 June 1979, by reading those documents. The court established the contents of psychologist Cvetko Ratković’s opinion of 19 June 1979, social worker Vera Radovanović’s report of 12 June 1979 and pedagogue Milosava Gudelj’s report of 18 June 1979 by reading those documents. The court established that, by the Centre for Social Work of the City of Novi Sad record no. Up.02-987/84 of 26 September 1984, the plaintiff was adopted by Petrović Periša and Petrović Georgina, née Miljković, and that it was determined that he would henceforth bear the adopters’ surname, Petrović, by reading the extract from the City of Novi Sad register of births maintained for the Novi Sad registration district, under serial number 2463 for 1979.

The revision seeks reversal of the appellate decision and alteration of the Basic Court judgment of 9 February 2026, alternatively quashing both. Its quoted proposed disposition is not a judgment already granting the claim.

- proceedings in which the same official constructs the case, selects the adopters, assumes the role of ad hoc guardian and consents to adoption. The Supreme Court therefore now has two legal paths. The first is to allow the appeal on points of law, set aside the Court of Appeal’s judgment and stop continued judicial maintenance of a decision that cannot withstand the text of the law, the documents in the file and the Convention standard of the right to identity. The second is to uphold that judgment and thereby assume present-day responsibility for maintaining it through the highest ordinary judicial authority of the Republic of Serbia. In that second case, the Supreme Court’s judgment will not be merely the dismissal of an extraordinary legal remedy. It will become the highest domestic judicial document by which the Republic of Serbia, despite examination of all the evidence clearly indicating the nullity of full adoption, confirms the legal consequences of administratively severing the identity, origins, paternal line, inheritance position, blood relationships, legal route to biological origins and linguistic-national continuity of the child who in 1979 was Milivoj Miletić. ## 7. REQUEST For all these reasons, the plaintiff requests that the Supreme Court of the Republic of Serbia: 1. ALLOW the plaintiff’s appeal on points of law; 2. VARY the contested judgment of the Court of Appeal in Novi Sad Gž2 211/26 of 22 April 2026 by ALLOWING the plaintiff’s appeal, VARYING the judgment of the Basic Court in Novi Sad P2.1435/2024 of 9 February 2026 and ruling as follows: **I.** The plaintiff’s claim is GRANTED: the full adoption established and declared by the decision of the Self-Managing Community of Interest for Social Protection in Novi Sad, no. UP.03-507/79 of 21 June 1979 in Novi Sad, whereby Vasić Milorad, born on 15 February 1941 in Osiječani, municipality of Doboj, and Vasić Gospava, born on 21 August 1932 in D. Klakar, municipality of Doboj, both residing in Budisava, Petefi Šandora 52, adopt the minor Miletić Milivoj, and whereby the adopted minor Miletić Milivoje receives the new name Vasić Milan, is annulled as absolutely void. **II.** The defendant is ORDERED, immediately on receipt of the judgment, to issue a decision annulling the decision of the Self-Managing Community of Interest for Social Protection in Novi Sad, no. UP.03-507/79 of 21 June 1979, authorising subsequent entry in the birth register of the information identifying the adopters Vasić Milorad and Vasić Gospava of Budisava as parents of the fully adopted child—the plaintiff—and, through that annulment, to restore the first birth entry of the fully adopted child—the plaintiff. 3. ORDER the defendant to reimburse the plaintiff’s litigation costs; **or** 1. ALLOW the plaintiff’s appeal on points of law; 2. SET ASIDE the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Novi Sad Gž2 211/26 of 22 April 2026 and the judgment of the Basic Court in Novi Sad P2.1435/2024 of 9 February 2026, and

The court identifies Decision 8/77 as SIZ’s general delegation for guardianship tasks. The probate file contains a separate 20 July 1979 court request to protect the minor’s rights. The documents concern different levels of authority: general institutional delegation and a particular protective action in the child’s probate proceedings.

On **21 June 1979**, at the premises of the Self-Managing Community of Interest for Social Welfare Novi Sad, acting as the guardianship authority within the meaning of Article 1 of the Decision Entrusting the Tasks of the Guardianship Authority to the Self-Managing Community of Interest Novi Sad, Social Welfare Novi Sad (“Official Gazette of the Municipality of Novi Sad”, no. 8/77), a full-adoption record no. Up.03-507/79 was drawn up concerning the minor Miletić Milivoj, born on 28 June 1974 in Novi Sad, to be adopted by adopters Vasić Milorad and Vasić Gospava, of Budisava, residing at Petefi Šandora Street no. 52. That record stated:

The April email expressly cites judgment P2.1435/24 and criticizes its handling of the paternal record and contradictions. The link opens the existing first-instance judgment; the email’s assessment remains the author’s.

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.

The judgment summarizes the 1979 declaration of heirship and the 9 January 1980 appeal order in an awkwardly repeated sentence. The complete probate-exclusion package shows the actual appellate directions, including the inquiry into acknowledgment in a public document. It allows that summary to be checked against the source decisions.

By Municipal Court in Novi Sad ruling no. O-196/79 of **23 November 1979**, the plaintiff, then a minor, was declared an heir of the late Pavle Lakatoš. An appeal against that ruling was filed on **12 December 1979**, on the ground that the plaintiff, then a minor, did not fall within the class of statutory or testamentary heirs. By ruling case no. Gž.11/80 of **9 January 1980**, the Higher Court in Novi Sad allowed the appeal and set aside Municipal Court in Novi Sad ruling no. O-196/79 of 23 November 1979; the plaintiff, then a minor, was declared an heir of the late Pavle Lakatoš.

The judgment reproduces the mother’s allegedly unknown residence, Vera’s appointment and her consent to full adoption. The earlier casework dossier records information about the parents, health insurance through the mother and her later stated address. The connection permits the particular parental information to be compared with the general assertions relied on in the judgment.

That the full-adoption hearing had been scheduled at the request of Vasić Milorad and Vasić Gospava, of Budisava, as adopters, for the full adoption of the minor Miletić Milivoj, in accordance with Article 30 of the Law on Adoption (“Official Gazette of SAP Vojvodina”, no. 24/76); that, in the preliminary proceedings, the guardianship authority had established that all statutory conditions for full adoption were met, and that the adoption complied with Articles 2 and 4 of the Law on Adoption; that the mother of the minor Miletić Milivoj had been at an unknown place of residence for a considerable time and, without justified reasons, was not performing her parental duty, so that, for those reasons and pursuant to Article 5 of the Law on Adoption, the minor Miletić Milivoj had, by decision no. Ur.03-506/79 of **20 June 1979**, been assigned an ad hoc guardian in the person of Radovanović Vera, a social worker who gave consent to this adoption; that it had been established that there were no impediments under Articles 10 and 11 and that a positive opinion under Article 15 of the Law on Adoption had been given; that the adopters agreed that the adoptee should inherit any property they might have and exercise all rights under Article 36 of the Law on Adoption; that, having been informed of Article 40 of that same law, the adopters expressed the wish that the adoptee bear their family name and be called Vasić Milan; that, all statutory conditions for full adoption having been met, the guardianship authority declared that full adoption was established whereby Vasić Milorad and Gospava, both residing in Budisava, Petefi Šandora Street no. 52, adopted the minor Miletić Milivoj; that the adopted minor Miletić Milivoje would henceforth be called Vasić Milan; and that the guardianship authority would deliver a report of the full adoption to the competent registrar for entry of the adopters’ particulars as the parents of the minor Miletić Milivoj.

The May letter discusses both court levels and says they maintained the consequences of the 1979 adoption. This link supplies the existing first-instance judgment for reading alongside the author’s expressly attributed assessment.

The courts of Serbia have now, through both a first-instance and a second-instance decision, maintained the legal consequences of the 1979 adoption. In substance, Serbia’s judiciary has not corrected the original severance of my Hungarian paternal line. It has confirmed it again.

The judgment separately lists the favorable June 1979 opinions of Cvetko Ratković, Vera Radovanović and Milosava Gudelj. Their complete assessment dossier shows the actual observations and grounds each used. It is the source for checking those recommendations against the author’s childhood account and the later Vasić records.

For the full-adoption proceedings concerning the minor Miletić Milivoj, psychologist **Cvetko Ratković** prepared an opinion on **19 June 1979**, concluding that Vasić Milorad and Vasić Gospava would bring up the adopted child properly and that the child would be in an environment conducive to proper psychophysical development. For the full-adoption proceedings concerning the minor Miletić Milivoj, social worker **Vera Radovanović** prepared a report on **12 June 1979**, concluding that, on the basis of her examination of the available documentation and the information gathered about the social and moral standing and the material and housing conditions of Vasić Milorad and Vasić Gospava, she was of the opinion that they should be authorized to adopt the minor Milentić Milivoj. For the full-adoption proceedings concerning the minor Miletić Milivoj, pedagogue **Milosava Gudelj** prepared a report on **18 June 1979**, concluding that, after a comprehensive examination of all the circumstances, with particular attention to the educational conditions for the child’s development in the adopters’ family, she was of the opinion that adoption of the minor Milentić Milivoj by spouses Vasić Gospava and Milorad was justified and appropriate, that is, that personal and social interests existed in concluding the adoption.

The judgment records the 26 September 1984 adoption after having reproduced the 1979 full-adoption record and its Article 40 reference. The linked second-adoption act permits direct comparison of the later legal status and surnames. The judgment does not identify an annulment of the earlier full adoption or explain that transition.

By the Centre for Social Work of the City of Novi Sad record no. Up.02-987/84 of **26 September 1984**, the plaintiff was adopted by Petrović Periša and Petrović Georgina, née Miljković, and it was determined that he would henceforth bear the adopters’ surname, Petrović.

The judgment rejects hearing Vinka and Dragan Ignjatić on procedural-economy grounds. The March 2025 record expressly contains the plaintiff’s proposal to hear them, as does the original claim. The documentary link establishes when the proposal was already made, separately from the account of the final hearing.

The court rejected the plaintiff’s proposal that **Vinka Ignjatić and Dragan Ignjatić** be heard as witnesses, considering that the facts had been sufficiently examined even without taking that evidence, so that doing so would only prolong the proceedings, and having regard throughout to the principle of procedural economy.

The envelope bears a 12 March 2026 stamp. The subsequent appeal records receipt on 13 March and challenges this judgment. Its service date is read together with the judgment’s fifteen-day appeal notice; the stamp alone is not a completed delivery record.

Visible postal stamp: **12 March 2026**. A handwritten “23” is visible beside it; a separate handwritten fragment at the bottom is not reliably legible. No role or date of receipt is assigned to those handwritten marks.

This is an editorial comparison with the author’s final submission, which challenges the parentage, consent and historical-record contradictions. The judgment instead explains its documentary credibility criterion and acceptance of the plaintiff’s consistent testimony. Linking the two exposes the particular arguments to which that reasoning can be compared; it does not treat the author’s conclusions as findings of the judgment.

The court accepted all the written documentation submitted, because it had been drawn up and issued by authorized and qualified persons, and therefore had no reason to doubt its credibility. The court established that the plaintiff was born on 28 June 1974 in Novi Sad as Milivoj Miletić and that his biological mother was Cvita Miletić, born on 23 March 1931 in Bila Vlaka, Benkovac, SR Croatia, on the basis of the extract from the City of Novi Sad register of births maintained for the Novi Sad registration district, under serial number 2512 for 1974, and the social worker’s report in the search procedure for Miletić Cvita of 9 March 2005. The court established that, after his birth, the plaintiff lived briefly with his mother, who then abandoned him, and that he subsequently lived with Pavle Lakatoš, on the basis of the contact and casework tracking sheet for Miletić Milivoj, no. 3871/79. The court established that **it had never been judicially determined that Pavle Lkatoš was the plaintiff’s father** on the basis of the plaintiff’s testimony, which was also corroborated by the written documentation submitted. The court established the contents of the Self-Managing Community of Interest for Social Welfare Novi Sad decision no. Up-03-335/79 of 16 April 1979, the full-adoption record no. Up.03-507/79 of 21 June 1979 and the Self-Managing Community of Interest for Social Welfare Novi Sad decision no. Up.03-507/79 of 21 June 1979 by reading those documents. The court established that Vasić Milorad and Tomić Gospava had married on 21 January 1962 in Petrovaradin, and that Gospava had taken the surname Vasić upon marrying, on the basis of the extract from the Municipality of Novi Sad register of marriages maintained under serial number 1 for 1962. The court established the contents of Municipal Court in Novi Sad certificate case no. Kr.II1353/79 of 5 June 1979, Municipal Court in Novi Sad certificate case no. Kr.II1354/79 of 5 June 1979, the “Novograp” certificate no. 02-17/243 of 6 June 1979, the medical certificate, protocol no. 805 of 4 June 1979 and the medical certificate, protocol no. 9/7 of 11 June 1979, by reading those documents. The court established the contents of psychologist Cvetko Ratković’s opinion of 19 June 1979, social worker Vera Radovanović’s report of 12 June 1979 and pedagogue Milosava Gudelj’s report of 18 June 1979 by reading those documents. The court established that, by the Centre for Social Work of the City of Novi Sad record no. Up.02-987/84 of 26 September 1984, the plaintiff was adopted by Petrović Periša and Petrović Georgina, née Miljković, and that it was determined that he would henceforth bear the adopters’ surname, Petrović, by reading the extract from the City of Novi Sad register of births maintained for the Novi Sad registration district, under serial number 2463 for 1979. The court evaluated the plaintiff’s testimony as a party to the civil proceedings and accepted the parts that were relevant to deciding this legal matter and the parts that were consistent with the evidence to which the court had given credence.