# Hearing of 26 March 2025 — “how he came under their jurisdiction”, P2.1435/24 ## Source and reading notes Full translation of the three-page Basic Court hearing record dated **26 March 2025**, case **P2.1435/24**. The non-public hearing runs from **10:00 to 10:30**. Bojana Vujić presides; the plaintiff attends personally and Maja Petrović appears for the defendant Centre for Social Work. Page 2 nevertheless says that the defendant’s submission is handed to the “plaintiff’s representative”. That wording is preserved alongside page 1’s personal-appearance entry. The printed small-claims instructions and Article 118 on page 1 belong to the form; they are not a new ruling that this claim is a small-claims case. A clipped, rotated printed fragment is visible in the upper-right margin of page 2; its missing text and origin are not supplied. The record distinguishes the plaintiff’s request for records explaining “how he came under their jurisdiction”, the CSR representative’s opposition to supplying pre-adoption family-law-protection files, and the panel’s final order concerning documentation of the adoption. The parties’ statements and the court’s orders are translated separately below. The next hearing is scheduled for 5 June 2025; this record does not establish that it was held. [Public source PDF — 3 pages](/files/documents/hearing-record-p2-1435-2024-2025-03-26/original/hearing-record-p2-1435-2024-2025-03-26-public.pdf) ## Source page 1 P2. 1435/24 ### RECORD OF THE MAIN HEARING 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**. Other summoned persons who have not attended: [field unfilled] ### Printed form instructions *) In small-claims proceedings, this record, besides the information under Article 118, paragraph 1, must contain: 1. Statements concerning the parties of greater significance, particularly those by which the claim is wholly or partly admitted, the claim or an appeal is waived, or the action is amended or withdrawn; 2. The essential content of the evidence taken; 3. Decisions against which an appeal is allowed and which were announced at the main hearing; 4. Whether the parties were present when the judgment was announced and, if present, whether they were instructed under what conditions they may lodge an appeal. For entering the necessary information in the record in accordance with the Civil Procedure Act and court practice, use the following blank pages of the record; if these are insufficient, add loose sheets as attachments. ## Source page 2 In view of the change in the composition of the panel, the panel makes the following ### ORDER The proceedings are resumed by reading the case file. The file is read. It is recorded that there are no objections to what has been read. It is recorded that the defendant’s submission dated **10.03.2025** is handed directly to the **plaintiff’s representative**. The plaintiff states that he maintains his action and the claim made, and his evidentiary proposal that the witness **Vinka Ignjatić** of Budisava, Petefi Šandora 168, and her son **Dragan Ignjatić** be examined in these proceedings. They were neighbours of the late adopters Gospava and Milorad Vasić and are acquainted with the fact that their marriage was dysfunctional even before the full adoption. He maintains his proposal to be examined as a party. He maintains his evidentiary proposal to inspect the Higher Court record already attached to the file, from the hearing in the divorce litigation of his adopters Gospava and Milorad. He maintains the proposal to request inspection of the file in which the marriage was dissolved, **P.1106/82**. He withdraws his evidentiary proposal to obtain officially from the Budisava Health Centre the medical record and medical history of his late adoptive mother Gospava Vasić. He proposes that the defendant be ordered to supply the documentation explaining how he **“came under their jurisdiction”**. These are his evidentiary proposals. He particularly emphasizes that, although at the previous hearing the court gave him the period he himself requested — 30 days to state whether he maintained the proposed witnesses or not — he did not properly understand what he was required to do. He therefore identified only Vinka Ignjatić of Budisava as a witness in his submission dated 10.03.2025, and at today’s hearing has stated that he also maintains the other proposed witnesses. The defendant’s representative states that she opposes the action and the claim in their entirety because the statutory conditions for annulment of the full adoption applicable when it was concluded are not fulfilled. She requests an additional period of **15 days**, during which I will provide a detailed written statement and supply the Adoption Act of SAP Vojvodina containing the provisions. At today’s hearing I submit the social worker’s report in the search procedure for **Cvita Miletić**, dated **09.03.2005**. I oppose the evidentiary proposals to examine all the proposed witnesses about the dysfunctional marriage of the adopters Gospava and Milorad Vasić, since this is not a ground for annulment of the full adoption and such testimony by the proposed witnesses is questionable because of their indirect knowledge of the family circumstances. I agree that the plaintiff should be examined as a party and that the attached written documentation should be inspected, and I request 15 days to provide a detailed written statement and supply the then applicable Adoption Act of SAP Vojvodina which applied at the time of this plaintiff’s full adoption. She also opposes officially requesting inspection of the divorce litigation between the late adopters Gospava and Milorad Vasić, because it and the statements contained therein are not relevant to these proceedings for annulment of the full adoption, since the grounds for annulment must exist at the time the full adoption was established. It is recorded that a photocopy of the social worker’s report in the search procedure for Cvita Miletić dated 09.03.2005 is placed in the file and a copy handed directly to the plaintiff, although he states that he possesses that record. [Printed page number: 2] [Clipped, rotated printed fragment in the upper-right margin: “Тужи… / 15 дана д… / али ће / сле…”. The missing wording is not reconstructed.] ## Source page 3 The plaintiff states that he agrees that the defendant’s representative be granted the requested **15 days** to provide a detailed written statement and the Adoption Act of SAP Vojvodina, but that he will supply it himself as well. He proposes that the court adjourn the hearing and examine him at the next hearing. He agrees that his proposal to examine the above witnesses should be decided after his own examination. He proposes that the defendant be ordered to supply all documentation concerning his adoption by the adopters Gospava and Milorad Vasić. Responding to the foregoing, the defendant’s representative states that, concerning the complete documentation of his adoption by Gospava and Milorad Vasić and requiring the defendant to supply it, **we do not oppose supplying files concerning the establishment of the full adoption, but we oppose supplying files involving the application of family-law-protection measures before the full adoption was established**, or, as the plaintiff requested, supplying **“how he came under our jurisdiction”**, because this would burden the proceedings in question and the relevance of such files to these proceedings is in question. It is recorded that the plaintiff and the defendant’s representative jointly agree on the next hearing date, **5 June at 10:00**. The panel makes the following ### ORDER The hearing is adjourned. On the joint proposal of the plaintiff and the defendant’s representative, the next hearing is scheduled for: **05.06.2025, starting at 10:00**. The plaintiff and the defendant’s representative, who are present, take note of this; written summonses will therefore not be sent to them. The plaintiff is warned of the consequences of failing to answer the summons, since he will be examined at the hearing under the threat of being passed over. The defendant’s representative is required, **within 15 days from announcement of the order**, to provide a detailed written statement and submit the relevant evidence as stated above, and within the same period to supply **all documentation held by the defendant concerning the plaintiff’s adoption** by the adopters, now deceased, Gospava and Milorad Vasić. Completed at **10:30**. Recording clerk — Parties — Presiding judge ## Later author’s clarification The author states: **“I already had the same Act and had been offering it to the court throughout.”** He also believes that a copy of the Act accompanied his claim as an attachment. This later clarification accompanies the 26 March record’s separate entry that he would also supply the Act himself, while the CSR representative requests another period to provide it.