Settlement proposal: nullity, paternity and original identity — CSR receipt confirmed on 3 March 2025

The original email header records sending on 3 March 2025 at 07:01:52 UTC, equivalent to 08:01:52 CET. The body identifies the promised settlement following the last court hearing and states the recognition-of-nullity and paternity proposal. This event is the sending step, distinct from the later office acknowledgment.

**From:** Milan Petrovic <[email protected]> **To:** “[email protected]” <[email protected]> **Date:** Monday, 3 March 2025, 07:01:52 +0000 (UTC) **Subject:** Settlement proposal — P2 1435/24 ### Subject: Settlement proposal — P2 1435/24 Dear Sir or Madam, I am writing concerning my settlement proposal, which I presented at the last court hearing. I believe there is room for a reasonable and fair agreement that would enable the dispute to be resolved quickly and avoid additional complications and consequences, both for the institution you represent and for the employees involved in these proceedings. ### 1. Substance of the proposed settlement I propose that the Centre recognize the nullity of my illegal adoption of 1979, which would restore my right to my original identity and open the possibility of continuing my legal struggle to establish paternity — proceedings that are currently barred to me because of the unlawful registration.

The reception office’s reply records 3 March 2025 at 08:30 GMT+1/CET and says the email was duly received. The same passage preserves forwarding at 08:15 CET. It confirms receipt of the message without recording acceptance of the proposed settlement or reading of every attachment.

**From:** Reception office — Prijemnakancelarija ([email protected]) **To:** [email protected] **Date:** Monday, 3 March 2025, 08:30, GMT+1 Dear Sir, Your email has been duly received. Kind regards, Reception office On Monday, 3 March 2025, at 08:15 CET, “novisad csr” <[email protected]> wrote:

The author expressly connects this email to the settlement proposal he presented at the last court hearing. The 6 February record quotes his reasonable-settlement offer and paternity objective without recording detailed terms. This email supplies those terms: recognition of nullity, original identity and continuation of paternity proceedings.

I am writing concerning my settlement proposal, which I presented at the last court hearing. I believe there is room for a reasonable and fair agreement that would enable the dispute to be resolved quickly and avoid additional complications and consequences, both for the institution you represent and for the employees involved in these proceedings. ### 1. Substance of the proposed settlement I propose that the Centre recognize the nullity of my illegal adoption of 1979, which would restore my right to my original identity and open the possibility of continuing my legal struggle to establish paternity — proceedings that are currently barred to me because of the unlawful registration.

The email names “Genetsko i Istorijsko Poreklo Milivoja Miletića.pdf” as a companion explaining the author’s biological identity. The linked six-page analysis preserves his genetic, historical and identity arguments, two figures and family descriptions. The email establishes the named connection; the office acknowledgment does not state that the analysis was opened or accepted.

**NOTE:** The complete contents of this email are in the attached PDF entitled **“Predmet - Nagodba.pdf”** [“Subject — Settlement”]. I also attach another document, **“Genetsko i Istorijsko Poreklo Milivoja Miletića.pdf”** [“Genetic and Historical Origin of Milivoj Miletić”], which further explains and proves my biological identity, relevant to this case. Please confirm receipt of this email and the attached documents within **24 hours**.

The CSR maintains that no statutory annulment ground exists in a submission headed 1 April and closing 7 May 2025. Both dates follow its reception office’s 3 March acknowledgment of the author’s settlement proposal. The submission does not mention that proposal or the genetic companion; the link documents this sequence without treating the submission as a reply or assuming who read the attachments.

It is undisputed from all of the above that the procedure in question was conducted in accordance with the legally prescribed procedures and professional standards applicable at the time the adoption ruling was issued, and that there is not a single statutory ground for its annulment. In Novi Sad, on 07.05.2025

The response dated 30 June says the settlement proposal remains unanswered and lists its receipt proof. The existing email archive supplies the 3 March sending and CSR acknowledgment as distinct earlier records.

On 3 March 2025, I sent the Centre for Social Work a settlement proposal aimed at a peaceful resolution of the dispute, with clearly defined terms. Along with this proposal I supplied evidence of my identity and origins. To this day the Centre has not responded, demonstrating a complete unwillingness to cooperate in resolving this dispute. I enclose proof that the settlement proposal was received.

The hearing date is 26 March 2025 and Maja Petrović appears for the CSR. The linked email thread records the Centre’s reception-office acknowledgment of the author’s settlement proposal on 3 March at 08:30 CET. This puts the proposal before the hearing. The hearing record does not mention that offer or record a substantive response to it.

Drawn up on **26.03.2025** before the Basic Court in Novi Sad. Presiding judge: **Bojana Vujić** Panel members — lay judges: Cicmil Zoran; Maravić Mirjana Recording clerk: Tatjana Nikolić Plaintiff: **PETROVIĆ MILAN** Defendant: **CENTRE FOR SOCIAL WORK** Subject of dispute: [field unfilled] Start at **10:00**. The hearing is **non-public**. The presiding judge opens the main hearing, announces the subject for consideration and establishes that the following have attended: For the plaintiff: **in person**. For the defendant: representative, law graduate **Maja Petrović**.

The full email exchange documents the 3 March 2025 peaceful-settlement proposal and the receipt acknowledgment at 08:30. The present submission develops the author’s argument about good faith and the absence of a substantive reply.

## Source page 17 - probate file O.196/79 and the Court’s order of 20 July 1979 for appointment of a guardian to protect inheritance rights, rather than for adoption. Combined with the monitoring sheet and adoption minutes of 21 June 1979, this clearly shows that the guardianship body acted: - before the probate court’s order; - without full and lawful authority; - with the objective of removing me from the circle of heirs; - while simultaneously interfering with my identity and national affiliation. ### IX. ATTEMPTED SETTLEMENT IN GOOD FAITH AND DISREGARD OF THE WARNING ABOUT PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY As early as the beginning of 2025, before this phase of the proceedings, the plaintiff offered the Centre for Social Work of the City of Novi Sad an opportunity to emerge from this case honourably and professionally through a peaceful resolution. The defendant thereby had a clear opportunity: - to acknowledge the unlawfulness of the full adoption in 1979; - to enable restoration of the child’s true identity; - to avoid international escalation and the issue of the personal responsibility of present managers and officials. Instead, the Centre chose to ignore that opportunity. #### 1. Chronology: email “Settlement proposal — P2 1435/24” (3 March 2025) On 3 March 2025, the plaintiff sent an email to the Centre’s official address, [email protected], with the subject: > “Subject: Settlement proposal — P2 1435/24”. At 08:30 that same day, the Centre’s reception office replied: > “Your email has been duly received. Kind regards. Reception Office.” (Note: the original text is in Cyrillic.) Thus: - the Centre indisputably received the email; - it indisputably had access to the contents of the proposal; - it indisputably knew that a settlement was being offered. After that acknowledgment of receipt, the Centre sent no substantive reply and showed no willingness to consider the settlement proposal.