# Basic Court judgment P2.1435/2024 — 9 February 2026

Full translation of the supplied ten-page scanned package: the judgment occupies pages 1–8; page 9 is its postal envelope; page 10 is an enlarged, rotated detail of that envelope. The judgment date is **9 February 2026**. The visible postal stamp reads **12 March 2026**; that stamp by itself does not establish the date of receipt. The original page images remain the source.

## Source page 1

Republic of Serbia  
BASIC COURT IN NOVI SAD  
P2.1435/2024  
9 February 2026  
Novi Sad

**IN THE NAME OF THE PEOPLE!**

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.**

Each party shall bear its own costs.

**Reasons**

On **22 February 2024**, the plaintiff, through his representative, filed an action against the defendant before the Higher Court in Novi Sad seeking annulment of full adoption. He stated that his full adoption, declared by the record of the Self-Managing Community of Interest for Social Welfare Novi Sad concerning full adoption, no. Up.03-507/79 of 21 June 1979, was absolutely void on several grounds pursuant to Article 41 of the Law on Adoption of the Socialist Autonomous Province of Vojvodina (“Official Gazette of SAPV”, no. 24/76). It was proposed that the court render a judgment upholding the plaintiff’s claim as well-founded; annulling, as absolutely void, 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; ordering the defendant, immediately upon receipt of the 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; and ordering the defendant 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.

By ruling case no. P.98/2024 of **26 February 2024**, the Higher Court in Novi Sad declared that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to deal with this legal matter and, once the ruling became final, transferred the case file to the Basic Court in Novi Sad as the court having subject-matter and territorial jurisdiction, for further proceedings.

On **29 April 2024**, the Basic Court in Novi Sad rendered ruling case no. P2.470/2024, declaring that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and raising a conflict of jurisdiction.

Resolving that conflict, the Appellate Court in Novi Sad rendered a ruling on **21 August 2024**, determining that the Basic Court in Novi Sad had subject-matter jurisdiction to deal with this legal matter.

## Source page 3

Responding to the action and the claim as formulated, the defendant stated at the hearing held on **6 February 2025** that it opposed both the action and the claim.

During the evidentiary proceedings, the court took evidence by reading: the extract from the City of Novi Sad register of births maintained for the Novi Sad registration district, under serial number 2512 for 1974; the social worker’s report in the search procedure for Miletić Cvita, dated 9 March 2005; the decision of the Self-Managing Community of Interest for Social Welfare Novi Sad, no. Up-03-335/79 of 16 April 1979; the full-adoption record no. Up.03-507/79 of 21 June 1979; the decision of the Self-Managing Community of Interest for Social Welfare Novi Sad, no. Up.03-507/79 of 21 June 1979; the extract from the Municipality of Novi Sad register of marriages maintained under serial number 1 for 1962; the Municipal Court in Novi Sad certificate case no. Kr.II1353/79 of 5 June 1979; the 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; the medical certificate, protocol no. 9/7 of 11 June 1979; psychologist Cvetko Ratković’s opinion of 19 June 1979; social worker Vera Radovanović’s report of 12 June 1979; pedagogue Milosava Gudel’s report of 18 June 1979; 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 dossier cover for Miletić Cvita Milivoj, registration no. 3871/79, no. UP03-335/79; the contact and casework tracking sheet for Miletić Milivoj, no. 3871/79; the personal record of a social-welfare service user, no. -3871/79 of 10 April 1979; by hearing the plaintiff as a party to the civil proceedings; and by reading all other written documentation attached to the file that was relevant to the decision. On the basis of the evidentiary proceedings conducted in this manner, the court established the following facts:

Plaintiff Milan Petrović was born on **28 June 1974**, in Novi Sad, as Milivoj Miletić. His biological mother is Cvita Miletić, who was born on **23 March 1931** in the village of Bila Vlaka, Benkovac, SR Croatia. After his birth, the plaintiff lived briefly with his mother, who then abandoned him. Thereafter, the plaintiff lived with Pavle Lakatoš, but it was never judicially established that **the plaintiff was his father**.

By the decision of the Self-Managing Community of Interest for Social Welfare Novi Sad, no. Up-03-335/79 of **16 April 1979**, the plaintiff was placed with the foster family of Julka Vizmeg. That decision stated, among other things, that the plaintiff’s mother was at an unknown place of residence and that his father was unknown, so that the plaintiff had been left without parental care.

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:

## Source page 4

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.

On **21 June 1979**, the Self-Managing Community of Interest for Social Welfare Novi Sad, acting as the authorized guardianship authority, issued decision no. Up.03-507/79, authorizing a subsequent entry in the register of births concerning the fully adopted child, the minor Miletić Milivoj, born on 28 June 1974 in Novi Sad, with the following particulars of the parents: particulars of the father: Vasić Milorad, citizen of the SFRY, born on 15 February 1941 in Osječani, Municipality of Doboj, residing in Budisava, Petefi Šandora Street no. 52; particulars of the mother: Vasić, née Tomić, Gospava, citizen of the SFRY, born on 21 August 1932 in D. Klakar, Municipality of Doboj, residing in Budisava, Petefi Šandora Street no. 52.

Vasić Milorad and Tomić Gospava married on **21 January 1962**, in Petrovaradin. Upon marrying, Gospava took the surname Vasić.

On **5 June 1979**, the Municipal Court in Novi Sad issued certificate case no. Kr.II1353/79, stating that Vasić Gospava was not under investigation and had not been indicted for a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment.

On **5 June 1979**, the Municipal Court in Novi Sad issued certificate case no. Kr.II1354/79, stating that Vasić Milorad was not under investigation and had not been indicted for a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment.

On **6 June 1979**, the Novi Sad construction work organization with unlimited joint and several liability of the basic organizations of associated labour, “Novograp”, issued certificate no. 02-17/243, recording that Milorad Vasić was its employee and that he had earned an average personal income in the preceding year in the amount of

## Source page 5

**6,500.00 dinars**, and that the certificate was issued at the employee’s personal request for the purpose of adopting a child and could not be used for other purposes.

On **4 June 1979**, a medical certificate, protocol no. 805, was issued for Vasić Gospava, concluding that, from a health perspective, she was capable of adopting a child and that she had no health impediments to performing parental duties.

On **11 June 1979**, a medical certificate, protocol no. 9/7, was issued for Vasić Milorad, concluding that he had no health impediments to adopting a child and that, from a health perspective, he was capable of performing parental duties.

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.

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.

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 court established the foregoing facts by evaluating the evidence taken, in accordance with Articles 7 and 8 of the Civil Procedure Act.

## Source page 6

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.

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 plaintiff’s claim is unfounded.**

## Source page 7

**Article 41 of the Law on Adoption of the Socialist Autonomous Province of Vojvodina** (“Official Gazette of SAPV”, no. 24/76) provides that full adoption is void if, when it was established, the conditions prescribed in Article 4 paragraphs 3 and 4, Article 10 paragraph 1, Article 30 paragraphs 1, 2 and 4 and Article 31 were not met, or while the grounds under Article 11 exist for which adoption may not be established, or if the prior consent under Article 12 of that law does not exist.

**Article 4 paragraph 3 of the Law on Adoption of the Socialist Autonomous Province of Vojvodina** provides that a person who is at least 18 years older than the adoptee may adopt, while paragraph 4 of that same law provides that, where the adopter is the spouse of the adoptee’s parent, or where other reasons indicate that the adoption is in the adoptee’s interests, adoption may also be established where the age difference between the adopter and the adoptee is less than 18 years, but not less than 15 years.

**Article 10 paragraph 1 of the Law on Adoption of the Socialist Autonomous Province of Vojvodina** provides that it is not permitted to adopt a relative in the direct line, a brother or a sister.

**Article 30 paragraph 1 of the Law on Adoption of the Socialist Autonomous Province of Vojvodina** provides that a child under five years of age may be fully adopted if the child’s parents are dead or unknown, or if they have abandoned the child and their whereabouts have not been established even after expiry of six months from abandonment of the child. Paragraph 2 of that same law provides that an adoption for which the conditions for full adoption were met at its establishment may be converted into full adoption even after the adoptee’s fifth year of age, and no later than the adoptee’s eighteenth birthday. Paragraph 4 of that same law provides that, if one parent is dead or unknown, a child up to the end of the fifth year of life may also be fully adopted, with the prior consent of the other parent.

**Article 31 of the Law on Adoption of the Socialist Autonomous Province of Vojvodina** provides that full adoption may be established only by both spouses and that a spouse may fully adopt the child of the other spouse.

**Article 11 of the Law on Adoption of the Socialist Autonomous Province of Vojvodina** provides that adoption is not permitted by: (a) a person deprived of parental rights; (b) a person regarding whom there is a reasonable suspicion that he or she will use the position of adopter to the adoptee’s detriment; (c) a person regarding whom it may be concluded that he or she will not bring up the adoptee to be a useful member of socialist society; (d) a person deprived of legal capacity; and (e) a person suffering from an illness that may endanger the adoptee’s health and life.

**Article 12 of the Law on Adoption of the Socialist Autonomous Province of Vojvodina** provides that, exceptionally, where justified reasons exist, a foreign national may adopt a child who is a citizen of the SFRY and resides in SAP Vojvodina, with the prior consent of the provincial administrative authority responsible for social welfare.

## Source page 8

During the proceedings, the court established without doubt that the Self-Managing Community of Interest for Social Welfare Novi Sad, as the guardianship authority authorized at that time, had fully carried out the plaintiff’s full-adoption procedure by Vasić Milorad and Vasić Gospava in accordance with the then applicable Law on Adoption (“Official Gazette of SAP Vojvodina”, no. 24/76). This entailed the guardianship authority establishing, in the preliminary proceedings, that all statutory conditions for full adoption were met; appointing an ad hoc guardian for the plaintiff, given that his mother had been at an unknown place of residence for a considerable time and was not performing her parental duty without justified reasons; consent to adoption being given by the ad hoc guardian; and conducting a procedure assessing the prospective adopters’ suitability (the opinions of a pedagogue, psychologist and social worker, medical certificates, etc.). Having regard to the foregoing, the court considers that the grounds for the absolute nullity of full adoption sought by the plaintiff do not exist, and therefore decided as stated in the operative part.

The court decided on the costs of the proceedings by applying Article 207 of the Family Act of the Republic of Serbia, finding that, given the nature and character of these proceedings, namely the regulation of family relations in this case, it was equitable for each party to bear its own costs.

For all the foregoing reasons, the court decided as stated in the operative part of this judgment.

PRESIDING JUDGE  
**Bojana Vujić**  
[signature and court seal]

**NOTICE OF LEGAL REMEDY:**

An appeal against this judgment may be lodged within **15 days from service of the judgment**, to the Appellate Court in Novi Sad, through this court.

## Source page 9 — postal envelope

S4 (Civil Procedure Act/notice)

Republic of Serbia  
Sender: BASIC COURT NOVI SAD  
Street and house number/post-office box: SUTJESKA 3  
Postal code and delivery post office: 21101 NOVI SAD  
Case marking: P2.1435/24, Judge VUJIĆ  
Postal item number: RS740292178RS

POSTAGE PAID AT POST OFFICE 21120 NOVI SAD

Recipient: PETROVIĆ MILAN  
Street/post-office box: KRALJEVAČKOG BATALJONA  
House number: 110  
Apartment number: [blank]  
Settlement: KRAGUJEVAC  
Postal code and delivery post office: 34113 KRAGUJEVAC  
Postal address code (PAK): 553626

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.

**Postman’s/delivery agent’s note in the event of non-delivery:**

Delivery attempted on [blank], at [blank] hours.

- Notice left in apartment/business premises — [unmarked].
- Notice left in mailbox — [unmarked].
- Notice left affixed to door — [unmarked].
- Notice left in post-office box — [unmarked].

**The letter cannot be delivered because:**

- Recipient unknown at the address — [unmarked].
- Address unknown — [unmarked].
- Recipient has moved — [unmarked].
- Address insufficient — [unmarked].
- Recipient deceased — [unmarked].
- Recipient away — [unmarked].

Signature of postman/delivery agent: [blank].  
Signature of employee returning the item: [blank].

## Source page 10 — enlarged envelope detail

The supplied tenth page is an enlarged, rotated and partly clipped image of the same envelope. The postal date **12 March 2026**, portions of the recipient’s name and the printed label “Recipient”, part of the barcode and postal item number, and part of the handwritten mark are visible. It is retained as supplied; it is not an additional judgment page or a separate delivery record.

## Editorial note on the transcription

Page 3 literally says that “the plaintiff was his father”; page 6 instead says that it had never been judicially determined that Pavle Lkatoš was the plaintiff’s father. Both formulations are preserved. Printed variants such as Mulivoje, Milentić and Gudel/Gudelj are also retained where they occur. The quoted claim begins on page 1; its dismissal is printed on page 2. The quoted historical findings and the court’s evaluation remain the words of this judgment.