# Appellate Court ruling R.22/24 — jurisdiction assigned to the Basic Court, 21 August 2024

Full translation of the two-page ruling supplied by the author. The public PDF is a permanently redacted copy of the supplied scan; the lawyer’s identity and the plaintiff’s personal identification number are redacted. The names of the judges acting in their official capacity remain visible.

The ruling was issued at the panel’s session on **21 August 2024**. The stamp on page 1 records receipt by the **Basic Court in Novi Sad on 30 August 2024**. There are **114 days** between the Basic Court’s ruling of 29 April and this ruling of 21 August; this document does not give the date on which the Appellate Court received the file. The decision resolves jurisdiction, not the merits of the claim for annulment of adoption.

## Source page 1 — Full translation

Republic of Serbia  
APPELLATE COURT IN NOVI SAD  
R. 22/24  
21 August 2024  
Novi Sad

### Receipt stamp

**BASIC COURT IN NOVI SAD — received on 30 August 2024.**

[The other fields of the receipt stamp are partly illegible.]

The Appellate Court in Novi Sad, sitting as a panel composed of judges **Aleksandra Pekez Kalinić**, presiding judge, **Vesna Bojović** and **Olivera Pejak Prokeš**, panel members, in the legal matter of the plaintiff **MILAN PETROVIĆ**, of Kragujevac, Kraljevačkog bataljona Street No. **110**, personal identification number **[redacted]**, represented by **[redacted]**, a lawyer of Novi Sad, against the 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 the annulment of full adoption, deciding the conflict of jurisdiction between the Basic Court in Novi Sad and the Higher Court in Novi Sad, at the panel’s session held on **21 August 2024**, issued the following:

### RULING

**The Basic Court in Novi Sad has subject-matter jurisdiction to proceed in this legal matter.**

### Reasons

By ruling **P.98/2024 of 26 February 2024**, the Higher Court in Novi Sad declared itself without subject-matter jurisdiction to proceed in this legal matter and, after the ruling became final, referred the case file to the Basic Court in Novi Sad, as the court with subject-matter and territorial jurisdiction, for further proceedings. It relied on **Article 24(2) of the applicable Act on the Organization of Courts**, in conjunction with **Article 274 of the Family Act**. In support of its decision, that court stated that the particular case was a family dispute brought for annulment of full adoption, to which Article 24(2) of the Act on the Organization of Courts must be applied, while Article 25 of the same Act prescribes the Higher Court’s jurisdiction in family disputes only in cases contesting or establishing paternity or maternity. The applicable Family Act, as a special law, does not prescribe the Higher Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction for this particular type of dispute, but only the court’s territorial jurisdiction.

After the case file was delivered, the Basic Court in Novi Sad declared itself without jurisdiction and raised a conflict of jurisdiction, relying on **Article 24(2) of the Act on the Organization of Courts**, **Article 358(1) of the Family Act**, and **Article 28(1) of the Adoption Act of the SAP of Vojvodina (Official Gazette of the SAP of Vojvodina No. 24/76)**. In the reasons for its decision, that court stated that this particular case concerned full adoption established and declared by a decision of the Self-Managing Community of Interest for Social Protection of Novi Sad, **No. UP.03-507/79 of 21 June 1979**, in Novi Sad. At that time, the Adoption Act of the SAP of Vojvodina was in force and prescribed in Article 28(1) that the district court decides on annulment of adoption. Accordingly, it sent the case file to the Appellate Court in Novi Sad to resolve the conflict of subject-matter jurisdiction.

## Source page 2 — Full translation

R. 22/24

In the Appellate Court’s view, the Basic Court in Novi Sad has subject-matter jurisdiction to proceed in this litigation.

On **22 February 2024**, the plaintiff filed a claim for annulment of full adoption, proposing that the court give a judgment annulling, as **absolutely void**, the full adoption established and declared by the decision of the Self-Managing Community of Interest for Social Protection of Novi Sad, **No. UP.03-507/79 of 21 June 1979**, in Novi Sad.

At the time the claim was filed, the Family Act was in force. In its transitional and final provisions, **Article 358** provides that adoption established before the beginning of application of that Act is governed by the provisions in force until the day its application began. This means that the provisions of the **Act on Marriage and Family Relations (Official Gazette of the Socialist Republic of Serbia Nos. 22/80 and 11/88, and Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia Nos. 22/93, 25/93, 35/94, 46/95 and 29/01)** apply. In its transitional and final provisions, **Article 418** of that Act provides for the cessation of validity of the **Adoption Act (Official Gazette of the Socialist Republic of Serbia No. 17/76)**, while **Article 185** prescribes that annulment of adoption is decided by the competent court in whose territory the guardianship authority before which the adoption was established is located. Thus, that Act does not prescribe the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction in these disputes, but only its territorial jurisdiction. This further means that the provisions of the applicable **Act on the Organization of Courts (Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia No. 10/2023 of 9 February 2023)** must be applied to subject-matter jurisdiction.

Under **Article 24(2) of the Act on the Organization of Courts**, a basic court, among other matters, adjudicates a civil dispute at first instance if no other court has jurisdiction over that particular civil dispute, and conducts enforcement and non-contentious proceedings, unless otherwise prescribed by law. **Article 25** of the same Act prescribes the Higher Court’s jurisdiction in family disputes only in cases contesting or establishing paternity and maternity.

In view of the above, bearing in mind that this litigation was brought for annulment of full adoption, this court, in resolving the conflict of jurisdiction, determined that the Basic Court in Novi Sad has subject-matter jurisdiction to proceed, by applying **Article 24(2) of the Act on the Organization of Courts**. The fact that the Adoption Act, which is no longer in force, prescribed the jurisdiction of the district court, a court which no longer exists, cannot lead to the Higher Court being given jurisdiction in this particular case contrary to the applicable Act on the Organization of Courts.

For those reasons, the decision was made as stated in the operative part, by applying **Article 22(1) of the Civil Procedure Act**.

**PRESIDING JUDGE**

**Aleksandra Pekez Kalinić, signed**

[Copy-certification notation: “Zto:” followed by a signature and seal.]

[Printed page number: 2.]

## Editorial source note

The two statutory references in the reasons are retained separately: page 1 cites the Adoption Act of the SAP of Vojvodina, Gazette No. **24/76**; page 2 names the Adoption Act of the Socialist Republic of Serbia, Gazette No. **17/76**, in the discussion of Article 418 of the Act on Marriage and Family Relations. The chain of provisions and the statement that the district court no longer exists are the reasoning of the panel chaired by Aleksandra Pekez Kalinić. The document’s operative part assigns jurisdiction to the Basic Court; it does not decide whether the contested adoption is void.