# Cancellation of the 3 September hearing: court order of 28 August and CSR request of 27 August 2025 Full translation of the two supplied scanned pages in case P2.1435/24. PDF page 1 contains the Basic Court’s order of 28 August 2025; page 2 contains the CSR director’s request of 27 August, with the court’s receipt stamp of that date. The scheduled hearing on 3 September at 10:00 is canceled and the next hearing is set for 15 October at 10:30, forty-two days later. The author’s account of notice at court on 3 September and postal delivery at home on 4 September is a separate source. [Public PDF, 2 pages](/files/documents/hearing-cancellation-p2-1435-2024-2025-08-28/original/hearing-cancellation-p2-1435-2024-2025-08-28-public.pdf) ## Source page 1 — court order of 28 August 2025 REPUBLIC OF SERBIA BASIC COURT IN NOVI SAD Case no. P2. 1435/24 Date: 28 August 2025 NOVI SAD The Basic Court in Novi Sad, acting through Judge Bojana Vujić, in the legal matter of the plaintiff MILAN PETROVIĆ of Kragujevac, Kraljevačkog bataljona no. 110, against the defendant CENTRE FOR SOCIAL WORK OF THE CITY OF NOVI SAD, concerning annulment of a full adoption, has issued the following ### ORDER The hearing scheduled for 3 September 2025, starting at 10:00, is canceled. The next hearing is scheduled for 15 October 2025, starting at 10:30, courtroom 210/2. You are informed of this by this order; you will not receive another summons. Judge BOJANA VULIĆ, signed For the accuracy of the dispatched copy, [Signature and court seal.] ### Editorial note on the printed surname The opening paragraph reads **Bojana Vujić**, while the printed footer reads **BOJANA VULIĆ**. Both readings are preserved. The catalogue identifies the judge as Bojana Vujić, as in the opening paragraph and the earlier records in this case. ## Source page 2 — CSR request of 27 August 2025 REPUBLIC OF SERBIA AP Vojvodina Centre for Social Work of the City of Novi Sad Novi Sad, Zmaj Ognjena Vuka 13 Tel: 021/210-1400 e-mail: novisad.csr@minrzs.gov.rs Date: 27 August 2025 No.: 560-111-1/2024 BASIC COURT IN NOVI SAD Reference: Your case no. P2.1435/2024 Subject: Request for postponement A hearing concerning the action brought by Petrović Milan of Kragujevac for annulment of a full adoption is scheduled for 3 September 2025. As the official who represents the Centre for Social Work of the City of Novi Sad as the defendant in the proceedings is absent due to illness, and the other authorised representatives are occupied with other cases, we request postponement of this hearing. DIRECTOR KATARINA STOLIĆ [Signature and Centre seal.] ### Court receipt stamp on page 2 BASIC COURT IN NOVI SAD. Submitted to the post office by registered mail on: [blank]. Received in person / by post (registered / ordinary); **“in person” is circled**. Date: **27 August 2025**. **1 copy**, with [blank] attachments. Fee paid: [blank]; without fee. Time: [unclear]. Signature: [signature]. ### Editorial distinction between the two texts The CSR request gives illness of an unnamed representative and the other representatives’ commitments as its reasons. The one-page court order states the cancellation and the next date; it contains no separate statement of reasons. These two supplied pages contain no medical certificate. The receipt stamp records the CSR request’s receipt by the court, not the plaintiff’s receipt of the court order. ## Supporting source — publicly redacted postal envelope and court notice [Searchable redacted postal envelope and notice, 2 pages](/files/documents/hearing-cancellation-p2-1435-2024-2025-08-28/original/hearing-cancellation-p2-1435-2024-2025-08-28-postal-envelope-redacted.pdf) ### Envelope page 1 **REPUBLIC OF SERBIA — BASIC COURT NOVI SAD**, Sutjeska 3, 21101 Novi Sad. Heading: **S4 (Civil Procedure / notice)**. Case reference: **“P2. 1435/24 sudija VUJIĆ”** — case P2.1435/24, Judge Vujić. Tracking number at both occurrences and barcode: **[redacted]**. Postage-paid box: **“POSTAGE PAID AT POST OFFICE 21120 NOVI SAD”**. The circular **NOVI SAD / 21120** postal stamp bears **02.09.25 — 2 September 2025**. Its time and procedural classification are not inferred. A handwritten **“20”** is visible, without an identified role. Addressee: **PETROVIĆ MILAN**. Street: **[redacted]**. House number: **[redacted]**. City: **KRAGUJEVAC**. Delivery-post-office code: **34113 KRAGUJEVAC**. Postal address code (PAK): **[redacted]**. Apartment number: [blank]. Other printed field captions: sender’s name; street name and house number / post-office box; case number; register; type of item and number of attachments; addressee; street name / post-office box; house number; apartment number; settlement; postal code and name of the delivery post office; postal address code. One printed field caption is partly obscured by the overprinted case reference and is not reconstructed. **Postman’s (delivery agent’s) note in the event of non-delivery:** delivery attempted on [blank] at [blank] hours; notice left at the residence/business premises; notice left in the mailbox; notice affixed to the door; notice left in the post-office box. No alternative is marked. **The letter cannot be delivered because:** addressee unknown at the address; address unknown; addressee has moved; address insufficient; addressee deceased; addressee away. These are unmarked printed alternatives, not findings about the addressee. Postman’s signature: [blank]. Signature of the employee returning the item: [blank]. ### Envelope page 2 — notice form The upper fragment repeats **“P2. 1435/24 sudija VUJIĆ”**. The lower form reads: **REPUBLIC OF SERBIA — NOTICE — BASIC COURT NOVI SAD**; **Sutjeska 3, 21101 Novi Sad**; **“P2. 1435/24 sudija VUJIĆ”**. Printed captions: case number; register. **PETROVIĆ MILAN**. Field caption: “Name and surname of the person, capacity in the proceedings (completed by the sender).” Address: **[redacted: street and house number], KRAGUJEVAC**. Caption: “Addressee’s address (completed by the sender).” **Date and time of attempted delivery (completed by the delivery agent): [blank]. Delivery agent’s signature: [blank].** The collection section shows **7777**, “dispatch room”, and **BASIC COURT NOVI SAD, NOVI SAD, SUTJESKA 3**, with “Address for collection of the letter (completed by the sender)”. The final instruction reads: **“Be sure to read the text on the reverse of the notice.”** ### Source distinction The envelope corroborates the court sender, case reference and **2 September postal stamp**. Neither page prints **4 September** or provides a completed delivery-date/signature field. The author’s separate account describes notice at court on 3 September and delivery at home by the postman on 4 September. The postal stamp is not treated as the court’s dispatch date or proof of personal delivery on that day. The public copy permanently removes the recipient’s street, house number, postal address code and tracking identifier/barcode; the remaining form text is preserved. ## Cancellation of the 3 September 2025 hearing: legal analysis **Editorial legal analysis prepared with AI assistance.** This is separate from the two source documents and the author's account; it is not a final judicial finding. The analysis applies the Serbian Code of Civil Procedure (ZPP) in force on 3 September 2025 and uses official court and legislative sources. ### The concrete procedural problem The supplied order in P2.1435/24, dated **28 August 2025**, cancels the hearing of **3 September at 10:00** and sets **15 October at 10:30**, courtroom 210/2: **42 additional calendar days**. Its introductory text names judge **Bojana Vujić**. The CSR request, dated and stamped as received **27 August**, is signed by director **Katarina Stolić**. It asserts illness of the official representing the Centre and commitments of other representatives in other cases. Neither supplied page shows an assessment of the actual inability to attend, the competing commitments or the feasibility of substitution. The request does not identify the ill official, specify the period of incapacity, identify the competing cases or list supporting attachments. This is a concrete weakness of the justification shown to the reader. It does not establish that no other material exists in the court file. The author states that he was **only informed of the cancellation at court on 3 September**; the order was not handed to him there. A postal carrier delivered the order to his home on **4 September 2025**, one day after the scheduled hearing. The supplied envelope visibly bears a **2 September 2025 postal postmark** and identifies the Basic Court in Novi Sad, P2.1435/24 and judge VUJIĆ. Its delivery-notice form has no completed attempted-delivery date, time or deliverer's signature. The scan corroborates the postal mark, not the author's reported **4 September delivery** or the exact history of dispatch from the court. The court order predates his reported agreement by six days: his later assent cannot explain why the court made its earlier decision. ### 1. Absence does not automatically require adjournment **Article 108(1) ZPP** makes adjournment exceptional, expressly addressing the taking of evidence or the judge's inability to attend. **Article 311(1)** provides for continuing the main hearing with the attending party when the other, duly summoned party is absent. **Article 310** requires checking summons and justification for absence when opening the hearing. [Official ZPP, articles 108 and 310–311](https://www.vrh.sud.rs/sites/default/files/attachments/Закон%20о%20парничном%20поступку%2010-23.pdf). **Application:** the CSR's wish to have its particular representative present is not itself an automatic right to stop the hearing. The request needed a concrete assessment of why the hearing could not proceed, including substitution and any evidentiary need. Calling the change a cancellation does not answer that question. These two pages do not disclose such an assessment. ### 2. Establishing inability to attend due to illness The cited ZPP provisions do **not prescribe a universal rule that every request must include a medical certificate**. The precise issue is whether the reason establishes inability to attend at the relevant time and whether a practical alternative exists. For a later application for restoration after losing a procedural right, **article 113(2)** expressly addresses appropriate supporting or proposed evidence; that is a different procedural mechanism from an advance adjournment request. [Official ZPP, articles 109–113](https://www.va.vi.sud.rs/files/zakon_o_parnicnom_postupku.pdf). The following decisions concern justification of absence and presumed withdrawal under article 311(2), rather than a general entitlement to an advance adjournment. They explain why both illness and available substitutes matter: - **Prev 206/2025, 17 April 2025:** the Supreme Court corrected a presumed withdrawal of the claim where the sole remaining attorney's illness justified absence; the alleged second attorney's authority had already been revoked. It does not establish an unconditional entitlement to adjourn every hearing. [Official decision](https://www.vrh.sud.rs/sr-lat/node/93286). - **Rev 336/2021, 14 July 2021:** planned leave did not justify absence where there was time to arrange substitution and another authorised attorney also failed to attend without justification. [Official decision](https://www.vrh.sud.rs/sr-lat/rev-3362021-3191245-%C5%BEalba-protiv-re%C5%A1enja). - **Rev2 3119/2021, 20 October 2022:** a medical report did not settle the issue where other authorised representatives existed and a real possibility of attendance was found. [Official decision](https://www.vrh.sud.rs/sr-lat/rev2-31192021-3191253-revizija-protiv-re%C5%A1enja). **Application:** director Katarina Stolić's assertion cannot be treated as a medical finding. Equally, absence of a certificate on these pages does not prove fabrication. The demonstrable criticism is the lack of a visible, specific evaluation connecting illness and other commitments to inability of the **Centre as a party** to participate on 3 September. ### 3. The Centre has several lawful routes to representation **Articles 77, 85(4), 89(1)(3) and 89(2)** distinguish the legal person's registered representative, an authorised employed law graduate who has passed the judicial examination (pravosudni ispit), and an attorney. Transfer by a non-attorney representative needs express authority. Any replacement must therefore be legally qualified and properly authorised. [Official ZPP, representation provisions](https://www.vrh.sud.rs/sites/default/files/attachments/Закон%20о%20парничном%20поступку%2010-23.pdf). Judge **Jelena Borovac's** commentary in the Supreme Court of Cassation's **Bulletin 3/2012, printed page 33**, specifically discusses replacement by another representative, the legal person's own representative or an engaged attorney. This is published judicial commentary, not a binding judgment. [Official Bulletin](https://www.vrh.sud.rs/sites/default/files/files/Bilteni/VrhovniKasacioniSud/bilten_2012-3.pdf#page=33). **Application:** the request itself acknowledges other representatives but supplies no concrete timetable conflict. Their being busy cannot simply substitute for evaluating whether any authorised person could attend. ### 4. Delivery matters independently of the adjournment reason **Article 364(1)** governs service of orders made outside a hearing; **article 106** permits electronic cancellation notices with a return confirmation of receipt. [Official ZPP, articles 106 and 364](https://www.vrh.sud.rs/sites/default/files/attachments/Закон%20о%20парничном%20поступку%2010-23.pdf). **Application:** the author's account raises the concrete issue of whether effective notice reached the plaintiff before his planned appearance. The reported written delivery on 4 September occurred after that appearance and one day after the canceled hearing date. The visible postal mark is five days after the order and only one day before the scheduled hearing. It does not alone establish the court's dispatch date, actual delivery or when the plaintiff learned of the cancellation. The supplied blank delivery-notice fields do not establish any attempted-delivery time. The relevant additional material is the service record, court dispatch record and any confirmed electronic notice. The 27 August stamp on PDF page 2 proves receipt of the **CSR request by the court**, not service of the **court's order on the plaintiff**. His reported unnecessary journey remains a concrete consequence; the available material does not establish that the court sent nothing. ### 5. Reasons and legal remedies **Article 329(2)** excludes an appeal against adjournment decisions. **Article 365(1)–(2)** requires reasons when a separate appeal is permitted. [Official ZPP, articles 329 and 365](https://www.vrh.sud.rs/sites/default/files/attachments/Закон%20о%20парничном%20поступку%2010-23.pdf). **Application:** the missing reasons and appeal instructions do not, by themselves, establish illegality of this case-management order. The stronger objection concerns the substantive basis, the evaluation of substitution and timely communication. A non-appealable order still does not confer an unrestricted power to postpone. ### 6. Legal inexperience and later agreement **Article 85(10)** provides the narrower warning about engaging a representative for an unrepresented party who does not exercise rights through ignorance. **Article 313** addresses factual clarification. **Articles 2 and 5** protect equal treatment and an opportunity to respond. [Official ZPP, relevant provisions](https://www.vrh.sud.rs/sites/default/files/attachments/Закон%20о%20парничном%20поступку%2010-23.pdf). **Application:** the court must apply statutory warnings and ensure equal treatment. The scope of article 85's warning does not amount to general legal advice. His ignorance cannot replace the court's own examination of a request made by an institution with professional representation. His reported agreement to a date is not automatically an admission that every asserted reason is true, or a waiver of every procedural guarantee. It cannot retroactively establish the reasons for the decision of 28 August. This does not presume a rule requiring a prior hearing of the plaintiff before every scheduling change. ### 7. The added 42 days require scrutiny **Article 108(2)–(3)** requires a new procedural timeframe and limits its duration to no more than one third of the originally set timeframe, while requiring the next hearing's place and date to be set immediately. The supplied order sets a new date and place. The [archived record of 6 February 2025](/en/documents/hearing-record-p2-1435-2024-2025-02-06), source page 3, already sets a **two-year timeframe and 12 hearings**. The 28 August order does not expressly state a separate new timeframe. The 42-day interval between hearing dates is not itself the overall procedural timeframe; respect for article 108(2) must be assessed against the actual timeframe orders, rather than inferred from that interval alone. [Official ZPP, article 108](https://www.vrh.sud.rs/sites/default/files/attachments/Закон%20о%20парничном%20поступку%2010-23.pdf). The significance of this identity and adoption dispute to the plaintiff, the prior course of hearings, the reasons for delay and the parties' conduct all matter when evaluating reasonable time. **Article 4 of the Law on Protection of the Right to Trial within a Reasonable Time** requires an overall assessment, rather than an automatic threshold of a particular number of days. Its 2023 amendments did not change that article. [Official original law, article 4](https://www.vrh.sud.rs/sites/default/files/attachments/Zakon%20o%20za%C5%A1titi%20prava%20na%20su%C4%91enje%20u%20razumnom%20roku.pdf#page=2); [enacted 2023 amendments](https://www.parlament.gov.rs/upload/archive/files/cir/pdf/zakoni/13_saziv/1839-23.pdf). **Assessment:** the shown request is generic while its effect is specific: another **42 days** without the planned hearing. No visible assessment explains why substitution or proceeding with the plaintiff was insufficient. Combined with the author's account of learning of the cancellation at court on 3 September and postal delivery at home on 4 September, this creates a serious, verifiable concern about timely notification, procedural diligence and equality. Those records are needed to assess the justification for adjournment and the timeliness of notification. *Research date: 4 October 2026. Relevant law version: ZPP, Official Gazette RS 72/2011, 49/2013-US, 74/2013-US, 55/2014, 87/2018, 18/2020 and 10/2023.*