# Ruling on a conflict of jurisdiction — Basic Court in Novi Sad, P2.470/2024, 29 April 2024 Full English translation of the three photographed pages of the ruling. The private identity of the plaintiff’s counsel is **[redacted]**. Judge **Bojana Vujić** remains named in her public judicial capacity. The ruling declares the Basic Court without subject-matter jurisdiction and orders the file sent to the Appellate Court to resolve the conflict of jurisdiction; it does not determine the merits of the annulment claim. [Public redacted three-page source PDF](/files/documents/basic-court-jurisdiction-conflict-p2-470-2024-2024-04-29/original/basic-court-jurisdiction-conflict-p2-470-2024-2024-04-29-redacted.pdf) ## Source page 1 — Full translation Republic of Serbia **BASIC COURT IN NOVI SAD** **P2.470/2024** **29 April 2024** Novi Sad The Basic Court in Novi Sad, acting through Judge **Bojana Vujić**, in the legal matter of the plaintiff **PETROVIĆ MILAN**, of Kragujevac, Kraljevačkog bataljona Street No. **110**, represented by **[redacted]**, an attorney from 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**, concerning the annulment of full adoption, issued the following on **29 April 2024**: ### RULING **The Basic Court in Novi Sad DECLARES ITSELF without subject-matter jurisdiction to act in this legal matter.** **The file shall be sent to the Appellate Court in Novi Sad for resolution of the conflict of jurisdiction.** ### Reasons On **22 February 2024**, the plaintiff, through his authorized representative, filed a claim with the Higher Court in Novi Sad against the defendant for annulment of full adoption. On **26 February 2024**, the Higher Court in Novi Sad issued ruling No. **P.98/2024**, declaring itself without subject-matter jurisdiction to proceed further in this legal matter and referring the case file to the Basic Court in Novi Sad as the court with subject-matter and territorial jurisdiction for further proceedings. ## Source page 2 — Full translation On **13 March 2024**, the plaintiff, through his authorized representative, sent a submission to the Higher Court in Novi Sad requesting that it issue a decision correcting its ruling No. **P.98/2024 of 26 February 2024** in the part concerning the instruction on legal remedies, by establishing that no appeal against that ruling was permitted and referring the case file to the Basic Court in Novi Sad, and that it serve the plaintiff’s authorized representative with a certified copy of the ruling correcting ruling No. P.98/2024 of 26 February 2024. On **1 April 2024**, the plaintiff, through his authorized representative, filed a submission with the Basic Court in Novi Sad in which he stated that he was raising a procedural objection to the Basic Court’s lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. He stated that, in its ruling No. P.98/2024 of 26 February 2024 declaring itself without subject-matter jurisdiction, the Higher Court in Novi Sad had incorrectly instructed the plaintiff that he had a right to appeal against that ruling to the Appellate Court in Novi Sad within 15 days of receiving it, whereas such an appeal was in fact not permitted under **Article 17(4) of the Civil Procedure Act**. He stated that, on 13 March 2024, the plaintiff’s authorized representative had sent a submission to the Higher Court in Novi Sad requesting a ruling correcting the ruling on lack of jurisdiction, establishing that the court had made an oversight and that no appeal was permitted, but that the Higher Court had not answered that submission. He then pointed out that the Higher Court had marked an incorrect date of finality for that ruling. He stated that, instead of 26 February 2024 as the day on which the ruling was issued, the Higher Court had determined **20 March 2024** as the day of finality, the day after expiry of an appeal period which could not even have begun to run because an appeal was prohibited by law. He further stated that the Act on the Organization of Courts was not the only law containing provisions on courts’ subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate particular legal matters; that this particular matter concerned a dispute for which the subject-matter jurisdiction of the Higher Court was prescribed by a special law, **the Adoption Act of the SAP of Vojvodina**, rather than by the Act on the Organization of Courts. It was proposed that the court uphold the objection as well-founded and refer the matter to the Appellate Court in Novi Sad to resolve the conflict of jurisdiction; alternatively, if it rejected the objection despite everything stated and argued, it should not continue hearing the merits until the ruling rejecting the objection, a certified copy of which the court addressed would serve on the plaintiff’s authorized representative, had been reviewed on a separate appeal before a panel of the second-instance court. **Article 24(2) of the Act on the Organization of Courts** provides that a basic court adjudicates civil disputes at first instance if no other court has jurisdiction over the particular civil dispute, and conducts enforcement and non-contentious proceedings, unless otherwise prescribed by law. **Article 358(1) of the Family Act** provides that an adoption established before the beginning of application of that Act is governed by the provisions that were in force until the day its application began. **Article 28(1) of the Adoption Act of the SAP of Vojvodina (Official Gazette of the SAP of Vojvodina No. 24/76)** provides that the district court decides on annulment of adoption. Taking into account the cited statutory provisions, as well as the fact that, in this particular case, full adoption was established and declared by a decision of the Self-Managing Community of Interest ## Source page 3 — Full translation for Social Welfare in Novi Sad, No. **UP.03-507/79 of 21 June 1979**, in Novi Sad, the court made the decision stated in the operative part of this ruling. ### INSTRUCTION ON LEGAL REMEDIES **No appeal against this ruling is permitted.** Judge **Bojana Vujić, signed** ZTO [Court seal and judge’s signature.] ## Editorial source note A separate sticky note attached above the text on page 1 bears **021/4876-398** and a note identifying the Appellate Court registry. It is not part of the printed ruling and states no date of receipt or other procedural event. The court’s account of the submissions of 13 March and 1 April is preserved as that account. The jurisdiction-conflict procedure is distinct from deciding the substance of the annulment claim. --- ## Author’s note — why I began representing myself in November 2024 *This is my later account and assessment of my own experience. It is not part of the ruling of 29 April 2024 and is not a finding of the court. I am not publishing the lawyer’s identity at this stage.* The lawyer who represented me during this part of the proceedings was the third lawyer I had approached. In my experience, the first did nothing, while the second misunderstood the issue entirely: he brought an inheritance claim against my sisters, which I withdrew. With the third lawyer, I also failed to have what had happened to me presented in its full meaning. I insisted that **forced assimilation** be explicitly addressed. According to my recollection, she replied: **“Serbs do not do that.”** In my assessment, she acted out of her own **“patriotic motives”**, rather than fulfilling her professional obligations towards me as her client. I also state that she herself terminated the representation while presenting it as though I had revoked her power of attorney. I intend to present the communications and documents concerning the end of that representation separately at a later stage. **From November 2024, I represented myself. This was not an act of defiance.** After my experience with three lawyers, I saw no other way to present the case as I understood it and try to secure meaningful progress. I could no longer bear the financial cost of proceedings that felt like going round in circles, while carrying the burden of collecting and connecting evidence that, in my view, the state itself should have established. I could not know with certainty what lay behind each procedural step. To me, the sequence of events looked like institutional delay. I describe this as my experience and suspicion at the time, rather than a documented finding about every participant’s intent.