# Basic Court hearing record P2.1435/24 — 26 November 2025 Full translation of the three supplied pages of the Basic Court in Novi Sad hearing record. The hearing took place on 26 November 2025, from 10:30 to 11:02. The text distinguishes the parties’ statements from the panel’s rulings. The supplied file contains the hearing record, without the medical reports mentioned in it. ## Source page 1 **P2.1435/24** **RECORD OF THE MAIN HEARING** Drawn up on **26 November 2025** before the Basic Court in Novi Sad Presiding judge: **BOJANA VUJIĆ** Panel members — lay judges: **Đurčok Milina**, **Danilov Dušan** Court clerk: **TATJANA NIKOLIĆ** Plaintiff: **PETROVIĆ MILAN** Defendant: **CSR NOVI SAD** Subject matter of the dispute: [field left blank] Starting at **10:30** **The hearing is closed to the public.** The presiding judge opens the main hearing, announces the subject of the hearing and establishes that the following have appeared: For the plaintiff: **in person** For the defendant: **representative Maja Petrović, law graduate, CSR** Of the other persons summoned, the following did not appear: [no entry] ### Printed form instructions *) In proceedings concerning small claims, this record, in addition to the information under Article 118, paragraph 1, must contain: 1. Statements concerning the parties that are of particular importance, especially those by which the claim is admitted in whole or in part, the claim or an appeal is waived, or the action is amended or withdrawn; 2.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 permitted and which have been announced at the main hearing; 4. Whether the parties were present when the judgment was announced and, if they were present, whether they were instructed about the conditions under which they may lodge an appeal. To enter 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 separate sheets as annexes. ## Source page 2 In view of the change in the composition of the panel, **The panel issues a RULING** The proceedings are restarted by reading the case file. The case file is read. It is noted that there are no objections to what has been read. The plaintiff states that he maintains the action and the claim as formulated. He maintains the proposals for evidence in point 2 of his submission of **29 October 2025**. He has no proposals for evidence other than these. He proposes that the opposing party be given a short period to respond to the statements and proposals in his submission. The defendant’s representative states that she opposes the action and the claim as formulated for all the reasons stated so far. Regarding the proposals for evidence and the statements in the submission of **29 October 2025**, we request a period of **15 days**, within which we will respond to it. She particularly emphasizes that, in the proceedings so far, they have submitted everything that is relevant, and that they may submit what the plaintiff proposes concerning what preceded the adoption, and I emphasize that I have already given instructions to our archive to that effect. I emphasize that we will submit our response to the plaintiff’s statements within 15 days, and, concerning the delivery of what is in our archive, we state that this is a very complex task because our archive is located in several places, particularly because the file is from **1974**. We must first establish whether it is in our archive, in the city archive or in the Archive of Vojvodina. We particularly emphasize that we do not know its condition, given the conditions in which the records are kept, if they are in our archive, concerning moisture. We therefore request a period of **30 days**. Regarding the plaintiff’s request for evidence concerning my absence from hearings, I submit evidence for the court and the opposing party — a specialist doctor’s report and a report on temporary incapacity for work for the period from **9 June to 5 November 2025**, because I broke my heel. It is noted that a photocopy of a report on temporary incapacity for work in the name of **Petrović Maja** and a photocopy of a specialist doctor’s report dated **9 June 2025** are placed in the case file, and that a copy is handed directly to the plaintiff. The plaintiff states that he agrees that the defendant’s representative be given a period of **15 days** to respond to his submission of **29 October 2025**. He also agrees that the defendant be given a period of **30 days** to deliver the requested evidence from its archive. It is noted that the plaintiff and the defendant’s representative jointly propose that the hearing be adjourned, and that they agree on **9 February at 10:30** as the date and time for scheduling the next hearing. **The panel issues a RULING** On the joint proposal of the plaintiff and the defendant’s representative, the hearing is adjourned and the next hearing is scheduled for: **9 February 2026 at 10:30.** ## Source page 3 The plaintiff and the defendant’s representative, who are present, take notice of this, so written summonses will not be sent to them. The defendant’s representative is given a period of **15 days from the pronouncement of the ruling** to respond in writing to the **defendant’s submission of 29 October 2025**. The defendant’s representative is given a period of **30 days from the pronouncement of the ruling** to provide the court and the opposing party with the evidence it holds in its archive and to which the plaintiff refers. Completed at **11:02**. Court clerk: [signature field] Parties: [signature field] Presiding judge: [signature field; visible pen mark] ## Editorial notes on the source - The record repeatedly gives **29 October 2025** as the date of the plaintiff’s submission. The separately supplied submission in this dossier is dated **27 October 2025**. Both dates are preserved; this record does not explain the difference. - On page 3, the ruling says **“the defendant’s submission”**, while the preceding passages on page 2 refer to the plaintiff’s submission. The translation preserves that wording. - The small-claims instructions and the reference to Article 118 on page 1 are printed form text. They do not constitute a separate ruling classifying this action as a small claim. - The rotated, clipped fragment of printed text at the upper-right edge of page 2 is incomplete and is not reconstructed as a separate statement. The supplied image preserves it.