Final hearing on 9 February 2026: Bojana Vujić closes the hearing; the author disputes both assertions that the file was read

The two-page source records the hearing held on 9 February 2026, from 10:30 to 10:51, and the panel’s closure of the hearing with an order to serve a written judgment. It links this event to its actual record; the separate author’s account disputes both reading assertions.

The hearing is closed. Serve a written copy of the judgment on the plaintiff and defendant. **Completed at 10:51.**

The final record states that Milan Petrović maintains all submissions and all oral and written assertions. The linked submission dated 12 January 2026 contains his final written case on nullity, violent assimilation and the historical evidence chain. The general preservation statement connects that written argument to the closing hearing.

The plaintiff states that he maintains the action and the claim as formulated, all assertions and all submissions. He has no further evidence proposals. He proposes that the hearing be closed. He withdraws all other evidence proposals that may have been made. He expressly states that he maintains all assertions made thus far, both orally and in writing.

The plaintiff’s maintenance of all submissions also connects the 27 October 2025 submission, which sets out representation objections, evidentiary requests and the historical case. The final record does not enumerate those requests individually; it preserves the written assertions while separately recording withdrawal of other evidence proposals.

The plaintiff states that he maintains the action and the claim as formulated, all assertions and all submissions. He has no further evidence proposals. He proposes that the hearing be closed. He withdraws all other evidence proposals that may have been made. He expressly states that he maintains all assertions made thus far, both orally and in writing.

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 opening order cites a changed panel composition and reading of the file. The 15 October 2025 record documents the plaintiff’s earlier examination and filing of his written statement. This connects the earlier examination record to the final procedural formulation, whose asserted reading the author expressly disputes.

In view of the change in the composition of the panel, the panel makes the following ### ORDER The proceedings are resumed by reading the case file. The case file is read. It is recorded that there are no objections to what has been read.

The final record again notes that the plaintiff revoked his lawyer’s authority and will act alone. The 6 February 2025 record already expressly documents the earlier termination of representation. This source connection prevents the repeated past-tense entry from being presented as a new start of self-representation in February 2026.

It is recorded that the plaintiff states that he has revoked his lawyer’s authority and will act on his own behalf.

The 26 November 2025 record scheduled the next hearing for 9 February 2026 at 10:30. This new source confirms that the scheduled hearing took place and ended at 10:51 with closure and an order to serve a written judgment. The scheduling entry and the record of actual attendance are distinct stages.

The hearing is closed. Serve a written copy of the judgment on the plaintiff and defendant. **Completed at 10:51.**

The closing record generally withdraws other evidence proposals while maintaining the action and all assertions. The earlier claim through counsel expressly proposed examination of Vinka and Dragan Ignjatić; the March record maintained those proposals. This connection identifies their earlier source without inventing a named witness-rejection decision in the final hearing record.

The plaintiff states that he maintains the action and the claim as formulated, all assertions and all submissions. He has no further evidence proposals. He proposes that the hearing be closed. He withdraws all other evidence proposals that may have been made. He expressly states that he maintains all assertions made thus far, both orally and in writing.