# Ruling of the Higher Court in Novi Sad P.98/2024 declining subject-matter jurisdiction — 26 February 2024 ## Source This reader contains a complete English translation of the two-page ruling, prepared from the supplied photographs. The public PDF is a technically straightened and redacted copy. Counsel's name and the plaintiff's personal identification number (JMBG) are replaced with **[redacted]**. The judge's name remains as information concerning a public judicial office. The ruling declares that the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction and provides for transfer of the file to the Basic Court in Novi Sad after the ruling becomes final. It does not dismiss the claim or decide its merits. The text below reproduces the operative part, reasoning and instructions on appeal in full. --- ## PDF page 1 — Complete translation [Coat of arms of the Republic of Serbia] **Republic of Serbia** **HIGHER COURT IN NOVI SAD** **P.98/2024** **26 February 2024** **Novi Sad** The Higher Court in Novi Sad, Judge Dr Biljana Lepotić, in the legal matter of the plaintiff Milan Petrović of Kragujevac, Kraljevačkog bataljona Street No. 10, personal identification number (JMBG): [redacted], represented by counsel **[redacted]**, an attorney in 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, registration number: 08154902, concerning annulment of full adoption, issued on 26 February 2024 the following ### RULING The Higher Court in Novi Sad declares that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to proceed further in this legal matter. After this ruling becomes final, the Court shall transfer the case file to the Basic Court in Novi Sad, as the court with subject-matter and territorial jurisdiction, for further proceedings. ### Reasoning On 22 February 2024, the plaintiff Milan Petrović of Kragujevac, through counsel, filed with this Court a statement of claim against the defendant Centre for Social Work of the City of Novi Sad, of Novi Sad, seeking annulment of full adoption. It was proposed that, following the evidentiary proceedings, the Court deliver a judgment upholding the claim as well-founded and annulling, as absolutely null and void, the full adoption established and declared by the decision of the Self-Managing Community of Interest for Social Welfare of Novi Sad, No. UP.03-507/79 of 21 June 1979 in Novi Sad. Under that decision, Vasić Milorad, born on 15 February 1941 in Osječani, 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, adopted the minor Miletić Milivoj, and the adopted minor Miletić Milivoje received the new name Vasić Milan. It was also proposed that the defendant be ordered, immediately upon receiving the judgment, to issue a decision annulling the Decision of the Self-Managing Community of Interest for Social Welfare of Novi Sad, No. UP.03-507/79 of 21 June 1979, which approved the subsequent entry in the birth register of the particulars of the 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 would restore the effect of the first registration of the birth of the fully adopted child, the plaintiff in these proceedings. It was also proposed that the defendant be ordered to reimburse the plaintiff for the costs of these civil proceedings, in the amount in which they are incurred, 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, failing which enforcement shall follow. The plaintiff also proposed that, pursuant to Article 284 of the Civil Procedure Law (ZPP), the Court in this legal matter grant the motion for the preservation of evidence and urgently schedule a hearing to examine the witness Ignjatić Vinka of Budisava, for the reasons set out in detail in the statement of claim. ## PDF page 2 — Complete translation Article 15 of the Civil Procedure Law provides that the court shall assess of its own motion whether it has jurisdiction and in what composition, on the basis of the allegations in the statement of claim and the facts known to the court. Article 17, paragraph 1 of that law provides that the court shall have regard of its own motion to its subject-matter jurisdiction throughout the proceedings. Article 24, paragraph 2 of the Law on the Organisation of Courts (“Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia”, No. 10/2023 of 9 February 2023) provides that the Basic Court shall adjudicate civil disputes at first instance unless another court has jurisdiction over the particular civil dispute, and shall conduct enforcement and non-contentious proceedings, unless otherwise provided by law. Article 25 prescribes the subject-matter jurisdiction of the Higher Court at first and second instance. The aforementioned article, in paragraph 1, item 7, provides that the Higher Court shall adjudicate at first instance: civil disputes where the value of the subject matter of the dispute permits an appeal on points of law; disputes concerning copyright and related rights, and the protection and use of inventions, industrial designs, trademark-protected signs, indications of geographical origin, topographies of semiconductor products and plant breeders' rights, unless another court has jurisdiction; disputes concerning the contestation or establishment of paternity and maternity; disputes seeking protection against discrimination and workplace harassment; and disputes concerning publication of a correction of information and a reply to information because of a breach of the prohibition on hate speech, protection of the right to private life or the right to a personal record, failure to publish information, and compensation for damage connected with the publication of information. Article 274 of the Family Law (“Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia”, Nos. 18/2005, 72/2011 and 6/2015) provides that, in a dispute seeking annulment of adoption, territorial jurisdiction lies with the court in whose territory the guardianship authority before which the adoption was established is located. Having regard to the cited statutory provisions, the Court considers that the present case is a family dispute initiated for annulment of full adoption, to which Article 24, paragraph 2 of the Law on the Organisation of Courts applies. Namely, Article 25 of the Law on the Organisation of Courts provides for the jurisdiction of the Higher Court in family disputes only in cases concerning the contestation or establishment of paternity and maternity. Neither the currently applicable Family Law, as a special law, nor any other law prescribes the subject-matter jurisdiction of the Higher Court for this particular type of dispute; only the court's territorial jurisdiction is prescribed. For those reasons, the Court has assessed that the Basic Court in Novi Sad has subject-matter and territorial jurisdiction to proceed in this dispute, applying Article 24, paragraph 1 of the Law on the Organisation of Courts in conjunction with Article 274 of the Family Law. Having regard to the foregoing, it was decided as stated in the operative part. ### INSTRUCTIONS ON APPEAL An appeal against this ruling may be lodged with the Court of Appeal in Novi Sad within 15 days from the date of service, through this Court. **JUDGE** **Dr Biljana Lepotić, signed** [Judge's signature and court seal] --- ## Editorial note on source forms This note is not part of the ruling. The source states the address number as **10**. On page 2, it first cites Article 24, paragraph **2**, but cites Article 24, paragraph **1** in its concluding assessment of jurisdiction. These particulars have not been silently corrected. The form **Milivoje** is also retained in the Court's account of the prayer for relief. --- ## Editorial supplement — Court portal record This section transcribes the supplied court portal image. It is not part of the two-page ruling. [Source: redacted court portal image](/files/documents/jurisdiction-ruling-p-98-2024/original/court-portal-p-98-2024-redacted.png). The portal shows case **P 98/2024**, status **RESOLVED (REŠEN)**, **date of receipt: 22 February 2024**, and basis of the dispute **DETERMINATION (UTVRĐENJE)**. The amount field is blank. The separate notice that the AVP system was introduced in this court on **19 April 2010** concerns the court's information system, not this case. - **Action date: 23 February 2024** — “On this date the case was received and assigned to a judge.” - **Action date: 23 February 2024** — “POWER OF ATTORNEY filed on 22 February 2024. Submitted by: [redacted] — ATTORNEY.” - **Action date: 27 February 2024** — “Case RESOLVED: RULING ON LACK OF JURISDICTION dated 26 February 2024, decision dispatched: 26 February 2024.” The column is labelled “Action date”. The entry dated 27 February records a ruling and dispatch dated 26 February. The image does not state when these data were first published online or when the screenshot was taken. The status “RESOLVED” in this record accompanies the ruling on lack of jurisdiction; it does not turn that procedural ruling into a judgment on the merits of the claim.