A Hungarian-Croatian child was absorbed into a replacement identity through an unlawful adoption process whose legal and institutional consequences continue into the present.
This archive confronts the reader with a state-enabled erasure of identity: a child of Hungarian-Croatian origin subjected to forced assimilation, a living mother bypassed, and an unlawful substitution of biological continuity whose consequences are still protected through the legal and institutional continuity of the Republic of Serbia.
The site is structured as a public dossier: contradictions first, then timeline, documents, evidence, and legal analysis.
Structural impossibilities first; archive depth second.
The 1984 chain does not restore Milivoj Miletić to his biological and legal origin. It uses “Vasić Milan” as the operative child identity, passes through Milorad Vasić’s consent, and ends with “Petrović Milan” in the civil register.
The case turns on whether a known and living mother could lawfully be replaced by temporary guardianship consent.
Probate material and identity substitution do not sit together cleanly; they point to parallel legal realities.
The present problem is not only historical illegality but the current method of handling it.
A compressed path into the case before the deeper archive.
The case begins with a child born under an original identity and biological family line in Novi Sad.
The 1979 act is presented as a complete legal reset, yet later material suggests unresolved continuity.
The present litigation matters because it reveals how contemporary institutions react when the contradiction is placed directly before them.
Chronology gives outside readers a linear path through the case.
Original identity before institutional rewriting: Milivoj Miletić, anchored in birth record, maternal line Cvita Miletić, paternal-line court/probate trace Pavle / Pal Lakatoš.
Baseline identity for the full birth-to-1984 arc. Later Vasić and Petrović states are administrative substitutions measured against this state.
Original identity continues to appear inside probate and guardianship materials after the imposed 1979 rewrite.
This is the visual proof that Milivoj did not disappear from the legal record on 21 June 1979.
First imposed identity created by the 1979 full adoption: Milivoj Miletić is administratively rewritten as Milan Vasić.
This state becomes the false procedural input for the 1984 second adoption.
Second imposed identity introduced by the 1984 incomplete adoption: Vasić Milan is carried forward into Petrović Milan.
This is not restoration of origin; it is the second layer of the double adoption loop.
83 records
Inside the divorce file, one line of evidence places the internal split of the marriage in 1968, when Pavle Lakatoš says Vera took over the mill business while he was left to the land, marking an early rupture later used to explain the collapse of the household.
Vera Lakatoš places the economic separation in 1972–1973, preserving a competing internal chronology inside the same divorce file and showing that the record itself carries conflicting dates of marital collapse.
Original identity baseline: Milivoj Miletić and mother Cvita Miletić before all adoptive rewrites.
Across several parts of the file, 1975 emerges as the strongest common breaking point: household life weakens, sexual relations cease, and both sides treat that year as a decisive stage of marital disintegration.
The adoption law of SAP Vojvodina that formed the legal framework relevant to the 1979 full adoption and remained in force until 1993; in this dossier it serves as the normative benchmark for measuring later unlawful substitution and continuity of responsibility.
By 1976 the private rupture becomes a court case, but the decisive dossier value is that P-1642/76 becomes the judicial file in which Pavle Lakatoš, Cvita Miletić and the child/son enter the record before the later identity substitution.
The 1977 judgment and hearings do not merely mention a child; they repeatedly preserve the Pavle / Cvita / child-son line through witnesses, family testimony, Pavle’s own statement and the court’s factual findings.
Pavle’s death triggers the probate line in which Milivoj Miletić will appear as son/heir before being removed.
The 1979–1980 probate chain shows a parallel legal reality: Milivoj Miletić appears in heirship materials while the adoption track pushes Milan Vasić.
The estate track opens. This is the inheritance corridor in which Milivoj Miletić will become visible as a legal/heirship problem, not a child without trace.
This is the clean opening of the heirship trace. Helena Uzelac identifies minor Milivoj Miletić and states that the deceased had acknowledged him. On the present material, she opens the inheritance line; she is not to be placed among accomplices without a document overturning this role.
The representation withdrawal follows the moment when Milivoj Miletić is introduced into the file. It is a procedural change immediately after the heirship trace is opened; the record must preserve that sequence without inventing motive.
The file preserves the mother and paternal line while the adoption track moves toward an operational parental void.
The assessment validates the adopters over a produced parental void and pushes directly toward the first identity substitution.
The 1979 full adoption is the first administrative identity substitution, governed by the strict full-adoption articles of the SAPV Adoption Act.
The court still processes Milivoj Miletić as a child with a probate status. This directly contradicts any later story that the original identity had cleanly disappeared after the June 1979 adoption.
The appointment confirms that the court and guardianship machinery are still handling Milivoj Miletić inside the estate track after the first adoption record. This is not a clean identity closure; it is parallel processing.
The decision places Milivoj Miletić inside the inheritance frame. That fact is a direct strike against the later operational erasure of the Pavle / Pal Lakatoš line.
The appeal turns Milivoj’s already visible heirship into a contested status and starts the procedural route toward his exclusion.
Probate appeal and post-appeal chain documenting removal from heirship. Appeal of 12 December 1979 against the part awarding Milivoj a one-quarter share.
Against that part of the inheritance ruling of this court dated 23 November 1979, no. O-196/79, by which the minor Milivoj Miletić was declared an heir of the late Pavle Lakatoš, formerly of Novi Sad, and by which one quarter of the estate was awarded to him, we hereby submit this appeal within the statutory time limit and request that the court forward it, together with the entire case file, to the Higher Court in Novi Sad as the appellate court, which we ask to set aside the challenged part of the ruling and return the matter to the court of first instance for renewed consideration and a new decision.Open supporting passage
Appeal and post-appeal heirship exclusion chain. Appeal of 12 December 1979 against the part awarding Milivoj a one-quarter share.
Against that part of the inheritance ruling of this court dated 23 November 1979, no. O-196/79, by which the minor Milivoj Miletić was declared an heir of the late Pavle Lakatoš, formerly of Novi Sad, and by which one quarter of the estate was awarded to him, we hereby submit this appeal within the statutory time limit and request that the court forward it, together with the entire case file, to the Higher Court in Novi Sad as the appellate court, which we ask to set aside the challenged part of the ruling and return the matter to the court of first instance for renewed consideration and a new decision.Open supporting passage
Jovan Pervaz's appeal uses the confidential full-adoption route and alleged prospective-adopter statements against Milivoj's heirship; the court receives that contaminated material as a lawful appellate basis.
Probate appeal and post-appeal chain documenting removal from heirship. Passage in the same appeal invoking the full-adoption proceedings and statements attributed to prospective adopters.
Apart from this, no other conditions exist for the minor Milivoj to have been declared an heir. Namely, before the SIZ of Social Welfare, acting as the guardianship authority, proceedings were conducted for the full adoption of the minor Milivoj Miletić by another family. In those proceedings, the prospective adoptive parents declared that they did not seek for the minor Milivoj to inherit from anyone, but rather that he was to be regarded, as provided in the case of full adoption, as their child. In those proceedings it was further established that the late Pavle Lakatoš, formerly of Novi Sad, was not the natural father of the minor Milivoj Miletić, but only that there had existed on his part an intention to adopt this child, which he never carried out.Open supporting passage
Appeal and post-appeal heirship exclusion chain. Passage in the same appeal invoking the full-adoption proceedings and statements attributed to prospective adopters.
Apart from this, no other conditions exist for the minor Milivoj to have been declared an heir. Namely, before the SIZ of Social Welfare, acting as the guardianship authority, proceedings were conducted for the full adoption of the minor Milivoj Miletić by another family. In those proceedings, the prospective adoptive parents declared that they did not seek for the minor Milivoj to inherit from anyone, but rather that he was to be regarded, as provided in the case of full adoption, as their child. In those proceedings it was further established that the late Pavle Lakatoš, formerly of Novi Sad, was not the natural father of the minor Milivoj Miletić, but only that there had existed on his part an intention to adopt this child, which he never carried out.Open supporting passage
The guardian shift belongs to the post-appeal chain. It is part of the mechanism by which the child’s probate status is handled after the attack on his heirship.
The Higher Court quashes the part of the inheritance decision concerning Milivoj, turning a recorded heirship into a reopened path toward exclusion.
Probate appeal and post-appeal chain documenting removal from heirship. Operative part of Gž.11/80 dated 9 January 1980 setting aside the contested inheritance ruling.
The appeal is upheld, and the ruling of the Municipal Court in Novi Sad no. O.196/79 of 23 November 1979 is set aside in the contested part in which it was determined that the minor Milivoj Miletić is an heir of the deceased and that his hereditary share amounts to 1/4 of the estate, and the case is remanded to the court of first instance for renewed consideration and decision.Open supporting passage
Appeal and post-appeal heirship exclusion chain. Operative part of Gž.11/80 dated 9 January 1980 setting aside the contested inheritance ruling.
The appeal is upheld, and the ruling of the Municipal Court in Novi Sad no. O.196/79 of 23 November 1979 is set aside in the contested part in which it was determined that the minor Milivoj Miletić is an heir of the deceased and that his hereditary share amounts to 1/4 of the estate, and the case is remanded to the court of first instance for renewed consideration and decision.Open supporting passage
The guardian says he lacks data on whether Milivoj is Pavle’s son although the file contains Helena Uzelac’s lead.
The same unresolved status continues. The paper trail shows that the system did not have a clean, lawful identity settlement.
The court asks the social-welfare side for status information. This exposes the institutional junction between the probate court and the social-welfare/adoption machinery.
The SIZ answer denies adoption by Pavle / Pal Lakatoš, but that is a narrowing move. The core issue is the child’s paternal and inheritance trace, then overwritten through the Vasić adoption path.
Translated excerpt
“WAS NOT ADOPTED by the late PAVLE LAKATOŠ.”
Original document. The link opens the indicated PDF page.
Probate appeal and post-appeal chain documenting removal from heirship. SIZ reply of 20 October 1980 addressing whether Pavle adopted Milivoj.
With regard to your request under the above-indicated number, we inform you that the minor Milivoj Miletić, born on 28 June 1974 in Novi Sad, of mother Cvita Miletić, WAS NOT ADOPTED by the late Pavle Lakatoš.Open supporting passage
Appeal and post-appeal heirship exclusion chain. SIZ reply of 20 October 1980 addressing whether Pavle adopted Milivoj.
With regard to your request under the above-indicated number, we inform you that the minor Milivoj Miletić, born on 28 June 1974 in Novi Sad, of mother Cvita Miletić, WAS NOT ADOPTED by the late Pavle Lakatoš.Open supporting passage
The final ruling treats a non-adoption answer as proof that Milivoj is neither son nor adoptee.
Original document. The link opens the indicated PDF page.
Probate appeal and post-appeal chain documenting removal from heirship. Reasoning of the ruling of 10 November 1980 referring to the SIZ report when excluding Milivoj from heirship.
In the repeated proceedings, it was established that the minor Milivoj Miletić is not the son of the decedent, nor had he been adopted by him, according to the report of the SIZ for Social Protection, Novi Sad, no. Up.03-608/79 dated 20 October 1980.Open supporting passage
Appeal and post-appeal heirship exclusion chain. Reasoning of the ruling of 10 November 1980 referring to the SIZ report when excluding Milivoj from heirship.
In the repeated proceedings, it was established that the minor Milivoj Miletić is not the son of the decedent, nor had he been adopted by him, according to the report of the SIZ for Social Protection, Novi Sad, no. Up.03-608/79 dated 20 October 1980.Open supporting passage
The timeline event must not read as ordinary marital conflict. The Vasić file records illness, poverty, support disputes and “disagreements over upbringing,” while omitting the violent domestic context that would expose the rushed 1979 placement as a child-protection failure.
The break in cohabitation shows the collapse of the first imposed family frame. The child remains inside the consequences of a substitution that did not hold.
Milorad’s departure is not a private detail. It marks the physical breakdown of the household that had been used to justify the 1979 transfer.
The divorce suit formalizes the collapse of the first adoptive construction. The legal record now shows the Vasić frame breaking while the child remains inside it.
The counterclaim confirms the household breakdown from the other side. The file records adult conflict, yet the child later carries the practical consequences.
The interim order is part of the court record that begins to process the failed Vasić household. The relevance is direct: the first adopted identity frame is no longer stable.
The divorce judgment is a sterilized court record of a failed adoptive placement: it blames the post-adoption period and “upbringing” disagreement, records no serious conflicts, and omits violence that would have exposed the rushed 1979 placement.
The 1984 sequence does not repair the 1979 substitution. It uses the Vasić identity manufactured in 1979 as the procedural input for a second transfer.
The Petrović request opens the second adoption path. From this point the case moves toward a second transfer while the child is still operating under the Vasić identity manufactured in 1979.
The psychologist does not give a clean adoption approval. The opinion says the adoption request should not be accepted and recommends foster care. Under Articles 2, 15 and 17, this is a legal warning, not decorative psychology.
The social-worker report recognizes conditions but with a decisive reservation: due to age, an older child should be placed. This is not unrestricted adoption clearance.
Milorad Vasić gives consent as father of “Vasić Milan”. That father position comes from the 1979 substitution. Under Articles 5, 14, 18 and 19, the consent is the bridge carrying the false Vasić identity into the second adoption.
CSR Novi Sad executes the second adoption through the contaminated Vasić Milan input; the proceeding does not restore the original identity or biological lines.
The civil register seals the second identity layer: Milivoj Miletić has already been routed through Vasić Milan and is now recorded as Petrović Milan.
The falsified Petrović identity did not return rights. It was already usable for military obligation in the wartime environment of 1993.
Original document. The link opens the indicated PDF page.
The Petrović identity remained useless for restoring origin, but fully usable for state coercion and military completion.
Original document. The link opens the indicated PDF page.
Serbia did not restore origin. It demanded military obedience and war participation under the falsified Petrović identity.
Original document. The link opens the indicated PDF page.
Ljiljana Ristić’s signed report recommends ending the search and preventing the mother–son meeting. It assesses Cvita’s present condition without locating her and begins the Novi Sad death-record check in 1998.
Original document. The link opens the indicated PDF page.
The report dated 9 March 2005 records social worker Ljiljana Ristić’s recommendation to stop the search for Cvita Miletić.
On the basis of the information presented, it can be concluded that further attempts to locate Miletić Cvita exceed the capabilities of this authority. It should also be borne in mind that Cvita was in a very poor psychophysical and socioeconomic condition when she was receiving protection from the Centre for Social Work in Novi Sad. The assessment is that even today she is not in a better condition, which significantly determines the response to her son's request. It is my opinion that this meeting between the biological mother and the adopted son should not take place and that further searches for Cvita should be discontinued.Open supporting passage
Two emails, at 10:45 and 10:47 (GMT+1), report the adoption and identity chain and request information concerning a possible investigation of the Novi Sad Social Welfare Centre.
Original document. The link opens the indicated PDF page.
The two author emails are the source for the submission of 15 November. The second explicitly corrects the first message’s faulty machine translation.
I am the victim of two illegal adoptions by the Centre for Social Work in Novi Sad. The first was carried out to take away my inheritance after my late father Pavle Lakatoš, who died on 7 November 1978 and with whom I had lived in Bački Vinogradi until then. I was given for illegal adoption on 21 June 1979, only seven days before my fifth birthday, because after that age full adoption was no longer possible under the law then in force. The first illegal adopters were from Budisava. They had their first interview with the social worker on 12 June 1979, with the pedagogue on 18 June 1979 and with the psychologist on 19 June 1979, and the adoption decision was made on 21 June 1979: exactly nine (NINE) days, a record in its own right! I was given for illegal adoption again in September 1984. The law was clearly violated there, because under the law an adopted child cannot be adopted again.Open supporting passage
The letter of 20 November refuses prosecution without identifying the offences examined or a specific limitation calculation. It was transmitted by official email on 21 November at 14:35 (GMT+1).
Original document. The link opens the indicated PDF page.
The signed letter states that prosecution will not be undertaken. The separate covering email records transmission on 21 November at 14:35 GMT+1.
We inform you that no criminal prosecution will be undertaken in connection with the submission that you delivered to this Public Prosecutor’s Office on 15 November 2023, because in this specific case it cannot be established that any person committed a criminal offence prosecuted ex officio for which this Public Prosecutor’s Office has subject-matter and territorial jurisdiction and for which the limitation period for criminal prosecution has not expired. I therefore consider that, in this specific matter entered in this Public Prosecutor’s Office’s “KTRKO” register, there are no grounds to initiate criminal proceedings in connection with the described criminal-law event.Open supporting passage
The present judicial phase begins and opens the question whether the judiciary of the Republic of Serbia will confront or continue the documentary consequences of the earlier identity substitution and forced assimilation.
Original document. The link opens the indicated PDF page.
The existing timeline event opens the full public redacted claim. This source passage dates the power of attorney to 20 February 2024. The later Higher Court ruling P. 98/2024, page 1, confirms filing on 22 February 2024; the timeline now uses this exact date. The OCR reconstruction alone did not establish it.
- **EVIDENCE:** the original power of attorney for counsel dated 20 February 2024, signed by the principal, the plaintiff Milan Petrović.Open supporting passage
The ruling expressly confirms receipt of the existing claim on 22 February 2024. This supports day precision for the unchanged timeline-6;20 February is the power-of-attorney date in the claim, a different procedural fact.
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.Open supporting passage
Ruling P.98/2024 dated 26 February records the claim filed on 22 February and directs transfer to the Basic Court only after the ruling becomes final.
Original document. The link opens the indicated PDF page.
The timeline opens the ruling of 26 February 2024 declaring the Higher Court without subject-matter jurisdiction. Transfer to the Basic Court is ordered only after the ruling becomes final; this source does not decide the merits of the adoption challenge.
The Higher Court in Novi Sad declares that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to proceed further in this legal matter.Open supporting passage
The 13 March submission challenges the 15-day appeal instruction under its quotation of Article 17(4), requests referral to the Basic Court and a certified correction ruling.
Original document. The link opens the indicated PDF page.
The dated submission and court receipt stamp identify the 13 March 2024 request to correct ruling P. 98/2024. The timeline records submission and receipt, not a court decision accepting the request.
[Receipt stamp of the Higher Court in Novi Sad: **“RECEIVED 13.03.2024”**]Open supporting passage
Summons issued on 22 March 2024 for the annulment-of-full-adoption case P2.470/24: 2 April 2024, 8:15 a.m., room 210/2.
Original document. The link opens the indicated PDF page.
The summons issued on 22 March 2024 schedules the main hearing for 2 April at 08:15 in room 210/2. The timeline records the issue of the summons; the source does not prove that the scheduled hearing took place.
of Novi Sad is summoned as **the plaintiff’s authorized representative** to appear on **02. 04. 2024 at 8:15 a.m.** at this court, room number **210/2**, in the legal matter of the plaintiff **MILAN PETROVIĆ** of Kragujevac against the defendant **CENTRE FOR SOCIAL WORK** of Novi Sad, concerning **annulment of full adoption**.Open supporting passage
On 2 April 2024, the case file does not show service of the defendant’s summons. The panel schedules 24 April at 11:00 and directs written summons to the CSR with the 1 April submissions.
Original document. The link opens the indicated PDF page.
The event is documented by the 2 April 2024 hearing record: service on the defendant was not shown in the case file, the procedural conditions for holding the hearing were not met, and the panel presided over by Bojana Vujić postponed it.
It is established that the defendant has not appeared at the hearing and that service of the summons upon the defendant is not shown in the case file as at the date of the hearing. Since the procedural conditions for holding the hearing are not met, **The panel makes the following** ### RULING **The hearing is postponed.**Open supporting passage
Counsel maintains the 1 April jurisdiction objection, disputes the 20 March finality stamp attributed to Biljana Lepotić, and reports no response to the 13 March correction request. The panel will decide the further course in writing.
Original document. The link opens the indicated PDF page.
The 24 April hearing event is documented by the appearance record: the plaintiff attended with his counsel, and Maja Petrović, a law graduate at the Centre for Social Work, appeared for the defendant without a power of attorney. The record identifies Bojana Vujić as the presiding judge.
**For the plaintiff:** in person with his authorized representative **[redacted]**, a lawyer of Novi Sad. **For the defendant:** for the defendant, Maja Petrović, a law graduate at the CSR, **without a power of attorney**.Open supporting passage
Ruling P2.470/2024 of 29 April relies on the historical Adoption Act’s district-court jurisdiction and sends the file to the Appellate Court to resolve the conflict.
Original document. The link opens the indicated PDF page.
The 29 April event is supported by the written ruling of the Basic Court, issued by Bojana Vujić: the court declares itself without subject-matter jurisdiction and orders the file sent to the Appellate Court in Novi Sad to resolve the conflict of jurisdiction.
**The Basic Court in Novi Sad DECLARES ITSELF without subject-matter jurisdiction to act in this legal matter.** **The file shall be sent to the Appellate Court in Novi Sad for resolution of the conflict of jurisdiction.**Open supporting passage
The Appellate Court resolves the conflict raised after the Basic Court’s 29 April ruling. It identifies the Basic Court as competent; receipt there is stamped 30 August.
Original document. The link opens the indicated PDF page.
The 21 August event is supported by the operative part of R.22/24: the Appellate Court panel chaired by Aleksandra Pekez Kalinić determines that the Basic Court in Novi Sad has subject-matter jurisdiction. The panel also includes Vesna Bojović and Olivera Pejak Prokeš. The receipt stamp of 30 August is a separate Basic Court date.
**The Basic Court in Novi Sad has subject-matter jurisdiction to proceed in this legal matter.**Open supporting passage
At P2.1435/24, the plaintiff appears personally and receives the 21 August Appellate Court ruling. He reports losing his job and requests time for legal help. The panel grants 30 days for a written position and supporting fee-exemption evidence.
Original document. The link opens the indicated PDF page.
The 5 November event is supported by the operative part of the hearing record: Bojana Vujić’s panel grants the plaintiff 30 days from announcement for his written position and evidence concerning court-fee exemption, will determine the further course in writing, and orders the record sent to the CSR. The period is granted; fee exemption itself is not decided here.
**The court will decide the further course of proceedings in writing, after the plaintiff’s written submission has been delivered.** **The plaintiff is granted the requested period of 30 days from the day this ruling is announced to state his position in writing on the further course of proceedings in this legal matter and to submit evidence concerning exemption from court fees.** **Deliver a copy of this record to the Centre for Social Work of the City of Novi Sad.**Open supporting passage
The submission dated 4 December maintains the claim and evidence and announces notice of the chosen lawyer by year-end. The plaintiff asks that no hearing be scheduled before that notice. The supplied copy has no court receipt stamp.
Original document. The link opens the indicated PDF page.
The event is supported by the written submission dated 4 December 2024 in P2.1435/24. The plaintiff maintains his claim and evidence, says he is responding to the court’s order, and announces notice of his chosen lawyer by year-end while asking that no hearing be scheduled before it. The date is printed in the submission; the PDF does not establish a stamped court receipt date.
I hereby declare that I maintain all the statements made in the claim and the requests I have set out in the proceedings against the defendant Centre for Social Work Novi Sad. I consider the stated grounds of the claim, as well as the proposed and enclosed evidence, to be of crucial importance for establishing the facts and reaching a decision in these proceedings. Acting on the court’s order, I submit evidence of unemployment, namely the Agreement on Termination of Employment dated 3 October 2024. **Attachment:** - Agreement on Termination of Employment dated 3 October 2024, a copy enclosed. This evidence confirms that I have lost my employment, in accordance with the statements in the previous record. For this reason, and given that my wife and son are unemployed and that I support them, I ask the court to exempt me from paying court fees. Payment of court fees would jeopardize the support of my family and myself, given that we currently have no source of income. Therefore, I ask the court to grant my request for exemption from court fees, taking into account my current financial circumstances. I also inform the court that by the end of this calendar year I will notify it which lawyer will represent me in the further course of the proceedings, and I ask the court not to schedule the next hearing until that notification is received. Please inform me if I need to submit any further evidence. **Kragujevac, 4 December 2024**Open supporting passage
The first-instance judgment and appeal phase place the contradictions directly before the present judiciary of the Republic of Serbia, making continuity of responsibility impossible to treat as someone else's problem.
Before Bojana Vujić’s panel, the plaintiff proposes a reasonable settlement and maintains his paternity aim. Maja Petrović invokes the adoption law, then asks 30 days to obtain it. Both jointly propose the future two-year/12-hearing framework; 26 March at 10:00 is scheduled.
Original document. The link opens the indicated PDF page.
This event is anchored in the operative part of the 6 February record. Following the parties’ joint proposal, Bojana Vujić’s panel sets a future two-year/12-hearing framework, adjourns and schedules 26 March at 10:00. It gives the CSR representative 30 days for her position, the plaintiff 30 days for his witness decision and 60 days for employment evidence. The scheduled hearing and planned 12 hearings are distinct from hearings already held.
…hours. They agree that the defendant’s representative should be granted the requested 30 days. They jointly propose that the time frame for conducting the civil proceedings be set at **two years, with a total of 12 hearings**. **THE PANEL MAKES THE FOLLOWING RULING** A time frame of **two years** is set for conducting the civil proceedings. The court will hold a total of **12 hearings**, at which it will take the proposed evidence and possibly other evidence, in accordance with the investigatory principle in family law. On the joint proposal of the plaintiff and the defendant’s representative, **The hearing is adjourned.** The next hearing, likewise on the joint proposal of the plaintiff and the defendant’s representative, is scheduled for: **26 March 2025, commencing at 10:00.** The plaintiff and the defendant’s representative acknowledge this, and written summonses will therefore not be sent to them. The defendant’s representative is granted **30 days from the announcement of the ruling** to set out her position in the above sense. The plaintiff is granted the requested **30 days** to state in writing whether he maintains the witnesses he has proposed. The plaintiff is granted the requested **60 days** to submit evidence concerning his employment or unemployment.Open supporting passage
At 08:01:52 CET the author sends the promised proposal following the February hearing. He requests recognition of the nullity of the 1979 adoption and sets out a conditional peaceful settlement, genetic origins and responsibility for continued violent assimilation.
Original document. The link opens the indicated PDF page.
The original email header records sending on 3 March 2025 at 07:01:52 UTC, equivalent to 08:01:52 CET. The body identifies the promised settlement following the last court hearing and states the recognition-of-nullity and paternity proposal. This event is the sending step, distinct from the later office acknowledgment.
**From:** Milan Petrovic <[email protected]> **To:** “[email protected]” <[email protected]> **Date:** Monday, 3 March 2025, 07:01:52 +0000 (UTC) **Subject:** Settlement proposal — P2 1435/24 ### Subject: Settlement proposal — P2 1435/24 Dear Sir or Madam, I am writing concerning my settlement proposal, which I presented at the last court hearing. I believe there is room for a reasonable and fair agreement that would enable the dispute to be resolved quickly and avoid additional complications and consequences, both for the institution you represent and for the employees involved in these proceedings. ### 1. Substance of the proposed settlement I propose that the Centre recognize the nullity of my illegal adoption of 1979, which would restore my right to my original identity and open the possibility of continuing my legal struggle to establish paternity — proceedings that are currently barred to me because of the unlawful registration.Open supporting passage
After forwarding at 08:15 CET, the reception office replies at 08:30 CET: “Your email has been duly received.” This is recorded receipt of the message, rather than acceptance of the proposed settlement.
Original document. The link opens the indicated PDF page.
The reception office’s reply records 3 March 2025 at 08:30 GMT+1/CET and says the email was duly received. The same passage preserves forwarding at 08:15 CET. It confirms receipt of the message without recording acceptance of the proposed settlement or reading of every attachment.
**From:** Reception office — Prijemnakancelarija ([email protected]) **To:** [email protected] **Date:** Monday, 3 March 2025, 08:30, GMT+1 Dear Sir, Your email has been duly received. Kind regards, Reception office On Monday, 3 March 2025, at 08:15 CET, “novisad csr” <[email protected]> wrote:Open supporting passage
The plaintiff appears personally and seeks origin, adoption and divorce records. Maja Petrović opposes supplying pre-adoption protection files and asks 15 days for the law and response. The panel sets a 15-day documentation deadline and schedules 5 June.
Original document. The link opens the indicated PDF page.
The record identifies the 26 March 2025 hearing in P2.1435/24, Bojana Vujić as presiding judge, the plaintiff’s personal appearance and Maja Petrović for the defendant CSR. Its final page contains the operative adoption-documentation order. This timeline event represents the recorded hearing, distinct from the next hearing only scheduled for 5 June.
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**.Open supporting passage
The CSR cites six statutory provisions and ten evidentiary items, declares the procedure lawful and dismisses the Vasić-suitability criticism. The document gives 1 April in the heading and 7 May 2025 in the closing text; this event uses the latter.
Original document. The link opens the indicated PDF page.
The closing conclusion, date 7 May 2025 and Maja Petrović’s signature identify the CSR’s opposition submission in P2.1435/24. The timeline uses this printed closing date and retains 1 April in the heading, without inventing a court-receipt or actual signing date.
It is undisputed from all of the above that the procedure in question was conducted in accordance with the legally prescribed procedures and professional standards applicable at the time the adoption ruling was issued, and that there is not a single statutory ground for its annulment. In Novi Sad, on 07.05.2025 For the defendant, by authorization **Maja Petrović, law graduate**Open supporting passage
At the scheduled time, the author reports an oral explanation from the judge and no written document about the change. He accepts 3 September as the next date.
The 5 June timeline entry opens the author’s account of his arrival, the oral explanation he heard and the September date he accepted. Its source is this author testimony, not a newly supplied court record.
The author states that he came to the court on **5 June 2025 at the scheduled time**. The judge told him orally that the CSR’s lawyer **“had broken her leg”**. No evidence of that reason was shown to him. He agreed to **3 September 2025** as the next hearing date and **received no written document** concerning that change.Open supporting passage
The submission challenges the CSR’s procedural conduct, ignored settlement proposal and 1979 adoption. Five attachments are listed, expressly including the 1976 Act.
Original document. The link opens the indicated PDF page.
The timeline entry opens the plaintiff’s submission dated 30 June 2025, which responds to the CSR submission identified as 1 April. This date comes from the text; no receipt stamp is present.
**PLAINTIFF’S SUBMISSION** (concerning the defendant’s submission of 1 April 2025) Kragujevac, **30 June 2025** Dear Court, In this submission I respond to the defendant’s submission (Centre for Social Work of the City of Novi Sad, dated 1 April 2025), setting out the key facts, evidence and legal arguments with a view to a correct and lawful decision.Open supporting passage
The 28 August order cancels the 3 September hearing and sets 15 October at 10:30, 42 days later. The 27 August CSR request cites illness of an unnamed representative and the other representatives’ commitments.
Original document. The link opens the indicated PDF page.
Judge Bojana Vujić’s order dated 28 August cancels the 3 September hearing in P 2.1435/24. The timeline date marks this written court order, not a hearing held on 3 September. The accompanying request is dated 27 August.
The hearing scheduled for 3 September 2025, starting at 10:00, is canceled.Open supporting passage
On 3 September 2025 I came to the court for the scheduled hearing. There I received notice that it had been canceled, and I agreed to the postponement. I did not receive the written order at court. The envelope bears a postal stamp dated 2 September 2025. The postman delivered the order to my home on 4 September 2025.
The author states that he came to court on 3 September 2025, received notice of cancellation and agreed to the postponement. He expressly states that the postman brought the written order to his home on 4 September and reports a 2 September postal stamp. The event marks his court arrival; next-day delivery remains attributed to his account.
On 3 September 2025 I came to the court for the scheduled hearing. There I received notice that it had been canceled, and I agreed to the postponement. I did not receive the written order at court. The envelope bears a postal stamp dated 2 September 2025. The postman delivered the order to my home on 4 September 2025.Open supporting passage
The plaintiff records delivery on 4 September, after the canceled hearing, and requests evidence for the CSR representative’s absence and the court registry’s dispatch record. The six-page PDF includes the envelope, CSR request and cancellation order.
Original document. The link opens the indicated PDF page.
The submission expressly bears the date 2 October 2025. The chronology uses that source date, before the hearing of 15 October; it does not invent a court-receipt date.
Kragujevac, 2 October 2025. Plaintiff, Milan Petrović Copy to: the defendant (one copy with attachments). Signature: _________________________________Open supporting passage
The record documents examination of the plaintiff, his written statement served on CSR, and fifteen days for further written evidence proposals. The hearing lasted from 10:30 to 11:35.
Original document. The link opens the indicated PDF page.
The record establishes the hearing held on 15 October 2025 before Bojana Vujić. Its start and finish are 10:30 and 11:35; this event marks the hearing, not merely an earlier scheduled date.
Drawn up on **15 October 2025** before the **Basic Court in Novi Sad**.Open supporting passage
The hearing record expressly confirms that the written statement dated 15 October was placed in the file and a copy handed directly to the defendant’s representative. The same hearing therefore links both its record and the plaintiff’s complete written statement.
It is recorded that the plaintiff’s written statement bearing the date **15 October 2025** is placed in the file, and a copy is handed directly to the defendant’s representative.Open supporting passage
Following the hearing of 15 October, the plaintiff seeks the complete adoption and preceding records, proof of Branislav Čolak’s authority and status, and examination of the original identity evidence. He reaffirms his 2 October requests and separates the law of 1979/1984 from CSR’s conduct in 2025.
Original document. The link opens the indicated PDF page.
The submission is dated 27 October 2025. The typed registered-mail notation does not itself prove when it was posted or received. Its main text, nine annex pages and separate supplement P1 are presented together.
Kragujevac, 27 October 2025. (By registered post with acknowledgment of receipt) Plaintiff, Milan Petrović ______________________________Open supporting passage
Maja Petrović seeks time to respond to the plaintiff and retrieve earlier archive records. Bojana Vujić grants fifteen and thirty days; the next hearing is scheduled for 9 February 2026.
Original document. The link opens the indicated PDF page.
The source records a hearing held on 26 November 2025 before Bojana Vujić. It contains the parties’ statements and the panel’s procedural orders.
Drawn up on **26 November 2025** before the Basic Court in Novi Sad Presiding judge: **BOJANA VUJIĆ**Open supporting passage
Dated 27 November and received by the court on 2 December, CSR’s response points to earlier copies, describes a metal cabinet and does not dispute the 1984 consent record’s contents or authenticity. The full requested preceding acts are not identified.
Original document. The link opens the indicated PDF page.
The CSR submission in case P2.1435/24 is dated 27 November 2025, while the court stamp records receipt on 2 December. The document date and the court receipt date describe different actions.
Date: **27 November 2025** **BASIC COURT IN NOVI SAD** Case no. **P2.1435/24**Open supporting passage
The submission links archive material to adoption as the best protection, with a misdated quotation and an inference about relatives’ care drawn from probate representation. The court stamp confirms receipt on 24 December.
Original document. The link opens the indicated PDF page.
The CSR submission in P2.1435/24 is dated 22 December 2025; the visible Basic Court receipt stamp records 24 December. The timeline event represents the dated submission, with court receipt separately identified.
Date: **22 December 2025** **BASIC COURT IN NOVI SAD** Case no. **P2.1435/24**Open supporting passage
The plaintiff answers CSR’s December submission and brings together the identity, probate, adoption and good-faith settlement evidence in a complete 75-page record.
Original document. The link opens the indicated PDF page.
The submission is dated 12 January 2026 on pages 26 and 75 and answers CSR’s 22 December response. The event uses that written date; no separate filing date is inferred.
## Source page 26 ### XIII. ANNEXES (FOR CLARITY) Note: The following annexes have already been supplied to the Court with the statement of claim and/or previous submissions and are listed here for clarity; they are not physically attached again unless the Court orders otherwise. 1. Birth-register extract KJ-8 / entry 2512/1974, concerning the mother’s nationality and the state of the entries — already supplied as an annex to the plaintiff’s submission of 27 October 2025; not attached again here, but expressly referred to. 2. Municipal Court in Novi Sad file O.196/79, insofar as already supplied: - the decision of 23 November 1979; - the minutes of 19 March 1979; - the letter of 20 July 1979. Those portions were already attached to the plaintiff’s submission of 30 June 2025; they are not attached again here, but expressly referred to. 3. File P-1642/76 — the divorce case containing Pal Lakatoš’s acknowledgment of paternity — already supplied as an annex to the plaintiff’s submission of 27 October 2025; not attached again here, but expressly referred to. 4. Appeal proceedings Gž 11/80 — portions of the appeal proceedings up to the point when Milivoj Miletić ceases to be among the heirs, rather than the entire appeal file, covering the course legally relevant to this case — already supplied to the Court as Annex 1; not attached again here, but expressly referred to. 5. Defendant’s submission no. 560-111-1/2024 of 22 December 2025 — already in the court file as the defendant’s submission; this submission only analyzes and quotes its contents without attaching it again. **Annex 2:** Social worker Vera Radovanović’s handwriting and a reconstruction — a readable transcription — of the exact text of the relevant note / monitoring sheet invoked in this submission. 6. Psychologist’s findings and opinion concerning married couple Periša and Gorgina Petrović dated 10 January 1984 — already supplied to the Court as a photocopy of the original and an OCR transcription to facilitate reading; not attached again here, but expressly referred to. **Annex 3:** Psychologist’s findings and opinion concerning married couple Periša and Gorgina Petrović dated 10 January 1984 — a photocopy of the original and an OCR transcription to facilitate reading. Kragujevac, 12 January 2026 Plaintiff, Official first name and surname — Milan Petrović ____________________________Open supporting passage
Milan Petrović maintains all submissions and all oral and written assertions; Maja Petrović maintains the CSR’s opposition. The record describes two readings expressly disputed by the author.
Original document. The link opens the indicated PDF page.
The two-page source records the hearing held on 9 February 2026, from 10:30 to 10:51, and the panel’s closure of the hearing with an order to serve a written judgment. It links this event to its actual record; the separate author’s account disputes both reading assertions.
The hearing is closed. Serve a written copy of the judgment on the plaintiff and defendant. **Completed at 10:51.**Open supporting passage
Judgment P2.1435/2024 dated 9 February 2026 rejects the claim for absolute nullity of full adoption. It accepts official documents because their authors were authorized and qualified, accepts the plaintiff’s testimony where it agrees with those documents, and rejects the proposed witnesses. Eight judgment pages and the postal envelope are supplied in full.
Original document. The link opens the indicated PDF page.
The judgment follows the closed hearing concluded on 9 February 2026 and dismisses the quoted claim. The event identifies the actual decision date; the later postal stamp and receipt remain separate. The complete ten-page source is available for checking the operative wording.
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.**Open supporting passage
Milan Petrović seeks reversal or a retrial, confronting the judgment with the unanswered evidence on competence, parental consent, Vera Radovanović and the second adoption.
Original document. The link opens the indicated PDF page.
The source is the appeal dated 18 March 2026. The dated conclusion anchors this timeline event; the supplied copy has no visible court filing stamp.
how the state, through its present institutions, chooses to position itself towards the consequences of contested acts from the past. In that sense, the challenged judgment matters not only for its outcome, but also for the message it sends about the state’s willingness or unwillingness to legally examine and remedy the acts that brought about the administrative severing of the original identity of a child of minority origin and the subsequent maintenance of the consequences of that severing. ### IX. REQUEST For all the reasons stated, I propose that the Appellate Court in Novi Sad: **primarily**, vary the challenged judgment and grant the claim in its entirety; **alternatively**, set aside the challenged judgment and remit the case to the first-instance court for a retrial and decision, directing that the renewed proceedings: - fully clarify the guardianship body’s authority before 21 June 1979; - clarify the relationship between probate proceedings O.196/79, appellate proceedings Gž 11/80 and the full-adoption proceedings; - apply Articles 30, 40 and 41 of the SAP Vojvodina Law on Adoption of 1976 precisely and specifically; - clarify the legal significance of the second adoption in 1984; - conduct a critical, rather than formal, assessment of the guardianship body’s documentation; - decide the costs of the proceedings anew. **Attachment 1:** Photocopy / printed depiction of the entire envelope of the Basic Court in Novi Sad’s court mailing in case P2.1435/24, addressed to the appellant Milan Petrović, with the visible designation of post office 21120 Novi Sad, barcode identifier RS740292178RS and postal stamp dated 12 March 2026, to prove the date of dispatch of the court mailing and the timeliness of this appeal. Kragujevac, 18 March 2026 Appellant, Milan Petrović ___________________________________Open supporting passage
Milan Petrović asks SVM for an official position on the forced assimilation, two illegal adoptions and severance of his Hungarian paternal identity described in his email, and announces that the response or its absence will be recorded.
Original document. The link opens the indicated PDF page.
The email sent on 16 April 2026 documents the author’s request that SVM state its official position on his described case of forced assimilation and severed Hungarian paternal identity.
I am writing to you not for political support or a ceremonial reply, but to raise a clear and recorded question concerning the very purpose of a party that presents itself as a protector of the rights of Hungarians in Serbia.Open supporting passage
In judgment Gž2 211/26, the panel affirms the first-instance decision. It cites Article 31 with Article 30's content and considers the conditions met without selecting paragraph 1 or 4.
Original document. The link opens the indicated PDF page.
The event marks the Appellate Court’s decision of 22 April 2026 dismissing the appeal and affirming the first-instance judgment. The Basic Court receipt stamp of 30 April is a separate later fact, not service on the appellant.
**DISMISSES** the appeal and **AFFIRMS** the judgment of the Basic Court in Novi Sad P2 1435/2024 of 9 February 2026.Open supporting passage
The author reports the two court decisions and SVM’s lack of response, and asks whether Hungary regards the protection of his Hungarian identity, language and origin as a matter of concern.
Original document. The link opens the indicated PDF page.
The 19 May 2026 event is supported by the original-message header inside the 7 September forwarding. The full English and Hungarian author letter is preserved in this same four-page source.
Sent: Tuesday, 19 May 2026, 8:16 PMOpen supporting passage
The revision of 29 May 2026 challenges the appellate judgment on Articles 30/31, parental consent, Article 40, paternity evidence and forced assimilation.
Original document. The link opens the indicated PDF page.
This event records the revision dated 29 May 2026 and its alternative requests: reversal granting nullity, or quashing and remittal. The document date is not a verified filing stamp.
REMIT the case for retrial before the first- or second-instance court, clearly directing the lower courts that in the renewed proceedings they must answer the following questions: - whether this case falls under Article 30(1) or Article 30(4) of the Adoption Act of SAP Vojvodina; - whether the statutory conditions of the six-month period and an unsuccessful search for the mother have been proven; - whether there was lawful prior consent from the known and living mother, or a lawful basis for any substitution of that consent; - the legal significance of Article 42 of the Adoption Act of SAP Vojvodina regarding the impossibility of arbitrarily applying Article 5 to full adoption; - the legal significance of the second adoption in 1984 in relation to Article 40 of the Adoption Act of SAP Vojvodina; - the legal significance of Vera Radovanović’s conflict of interest; - the legal significance of probate proceedings O.196/79, appeal proceedings Gž 11/80 and divorce file P-1642/76 for assessment of the lawfulness of the administrative formula “father unknown”; - whether the full-adoption record, by its own contents accepted by the courts, directly conflicts with Article 34 of the Adoption Act of SAP Vojvodina; - the legal significance of Articles 35, 37, 38 and 40 of the Adoption Act of SAP Vojvodina regarding the objective function of full adoption as a mechanism for cancelling the old birth entry, making a new entry identifying the adopters as parents, terminating rights and duties towards blood relatives, prohibiting determination of paternity and maternity, and making that legal situation indissoluble; - whether Article 8 of the European Convention and Article 78 of the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia must apply in this case, given that it concerns the right to identity, origins, personal history, family continuity, prohibition of forced assimilation and protection from state maintenance of the administrative severing of original identity. **Schedule of costs:** - For preparation of this appeal on points of law: RSD 55,000.00, pursuant to the Tariff of Fees and Reimbursement of Costs for Advocates’ Work. Kragujevac, **29 May 2026** __________________________________________ **Nikolaj Petronijević, advocate**Open supporting passage
The Prime Minister’s Office informs Milan Lakatoš Petrović that his inquiry is being referred to the Ministry Responsible for Social Relations and Culture for further handling, under file registration number ID_ME-IF/332/2/2026.
Original document. The link opens the indicated PDF page.
The 24 August 2026 official email informs the author of referral to the ministry for further handling. It supplies the file registration reference ID_ME-IF/332/2/2026.
From: “Érkeztetők” <[email protected]>Open supporting passage
The Prime Minister’s Office forwards the inquiry to the ministry, with the author copied, under incoming registration number ME_ERK/16706/2026. The four-page record includes his complete English and Hungarian reminder sent on 19 May 2026.
Original document. The link opens the indicated PDF page.
The 7 September 2026 cover records forwarding by the Prime Minister’s Office to the TKKM ministry customer service, with the author copied. It states that the forwarding is made on behalf of the Prime Minister’s Cabinet.
On behalf of the Prime Minister’s Cabinet (Miniszterelnöki Kabinet), and pursuant to Government Decree 90/2026 (V.13.) on the duties and powers of members of the Government, we are forwarding to you, on grounds of competence, the inquiry received in the electronic mailbox of the Prime Minister’s Office (Miniszterelnökség), for further handling.Open supporting passage
No records in this selection.
On 9 March 2005, Ljiljana Ristić recommends stopping the search for Cvita Miletić and says that a meeting with her son should not take place. The report checks Novi Sad death records only from 1 June 1998, leaving the author’s stated 1997 death outside that period.
Open document pageThe author’s two emails of 15 November 2023, the prosecutor’s letter dated 20 November, and the official email transmitting that letter on 21 November. The package preserves what was reported and the written response.
Open document pageOpening court filing challenging the 1979 full adoption as an unlawful act of identity substitution imposed on a child of Hungarian-Croatian origin, with continuing consequences borne within the legal continuity of the Republic of Serbia.
Open document pageThe court records the claim filed on 22 February 2024, declares that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction and orders referral to the Basic Court after finality.
Open document pageCounsel requests urgent correction of the appeal instruction, referral to the Basic Court and delivery of a certified copy. The submission and court receipt stamp are dated 13 March 2024.
Open document pageThe Basic Court in Novi Sad summoned the plaintiff’s authorized representative to a main hearing on 2 April 2024 at 8:15 a.m., room 210/2, in the case for annulment of full adoption. The summons is dated 22 March 2024 and bears Judge Bojana Vujić’s name.
Open document pageThe non-public hearing record names Judge Bojana Vujić. The plaintiff is absent in person but represented by counsel; no one appears for the CSR and service of its summons is not shown. The panel postpones the hearing to 24 April at 11:00.
Open document pageMaja Petrović, a CSR law graduate, appears without a power of attorney. Before Judge Bojana Vujić’s panel, counsel challenges jurisdiction and the finality stamp attributed to Higher Court judge Biljana Lepotić. The panel will decide the further course in writing.
Open document pageIn ruling P2.470/2024, the Basic Court in Novi Sad declares itself without subject-matter jurisdiction and orders the file sent to the Appellate Court to resolve the conflict of jurisdiction. Its reasoning expressly cites Article 28(1) of the 1976 Vojvodina Adoption Act: annulment of adoption is decided by the district court.
Open document pageThe Appellate Court panel of Aleksandra Pekez Kalinić, Vesna Bojović and Olivera Pejak Prokeš resolves the jurisdictional conflict in favour of the Basic Court. Its reasons recount the Vojvodina 1976 argument, then rely on a 1980 statute and the 2023 court-organization statute. The Basic Court receipt stamp is dated 30 August.
Open document pageMilan Petrović attends in person; no one appears for the CSR despite the recorded summons to its representative. The Appellate Court’s R.22/24 ruling is handed to him. He asks for time to seek legal help and reports losing his job. The panel grants 30 days for a written submission and evidence concerning court fees.
Open document pageThe plaintiff sets out his written position after the 5 November order. He maintains his claim, requests and evidence, announces that he will notify the court of his chosen lawyer by year-end, and asks that no hearing be scheduled before that notice.
Open document pageThe plaintiff maintains his claim, acts without professional legal assistance and proposes “a settlement, which is very reasonable”. Maja Petrović defends the adoption under the 1976 Act while asking 30 days to obtain and study it; her statement gives both 1976 and 21 June 1979 for the ruling. On the parties’ joint proposal, the panel sets a two-year/12-hearing framework and schedules 26 March.
Open document pageThe author sends a detailed settlement proposal after the February hearing: recognition of the nullity of the 1979 adoption, restoration of original identity and continuation of paternity proceedings. He sets out his genetic and family origins, warns against continued violent assimilation and asks for a reply within seven days. CSR’s reception office confirms email receipt at 08:30 CET.
Open document pageThe author’s six-page analysis argues that his Croatian-Hungarian parentage and known paternal and maternal family relationships were erased through illegal adoption and forced assimilation. He sets out haplogroups, ethnicity estimates and four DNA matches, explains who the relatives are, and links restoration of identity to his settlement objective.
Open document pageThe plaintiff personally requests witnesses, divorce records and documents showing how he came under CSR jurisdiction. Maja Petrović opposes pre-adoption family-law-protection files and the divorce evidence, requests another 15 days for the Act and her position, and supplies the 2005 search report. The panel orders adoption documentation within 15 days and schedules 5 June.
Open document pageThe CSR asserts that the adoption met every statutory requirement, cites Articles 41, 4, 10, 30, 31 and 11 of the 1976 Act, and lists ten evidentiary items. It dismisses criticism of Gospava and Milorad Vasić’s suitability as coming from unqualified persons without statutory authority and as interpretation from a distance of 46 years. The heading gives 1 April; the closing text gives 7 May 2025.
Open document pageThe author says he attended at the scheduled time on 5 June. The judge told him orally that the CSR lawyer had broken her leg; he was shown no evidence of the reason, accepted 3 September and received no written document about the change.
Open document pageMilan Petrović responds to the CSR’s submission, challenges its reversed party labels and failure to provide documentation, and argues backdating and the nullity of the full adoption. He cites the unanswered settlement proposal and expressly lists the 1976 Act as attachment 3.
Open document pageThe author compares the social worker’s, educational specialist’s and psychologist’s reports, alleging contradictions in biographies, schooling and the child’s status, formulaic findings and deliberate violations of the Adoption Act. A later separate correction withdraws the doubt about eighteen years of marriage.
Open document pageThe 28 August order cancels the 3 September hearing and sets 15 October at 10:30, 42 days later. The 27 August CSR request cites illness of an unnamed representative and the other representatives’ commitments.
Open document pageOn 3 September 2025 I came to the court for the scheduled hearing. There I received notice that it had been canceled, and I agreed to the postponement. I did not receive the written order at court. The envelope bears a postal stamp dated 2 September 2025. The postman delivered the order to my home on 4 September 2025.
Open document pageThe plaintiff records delivery on 4 September, after the canceled hearing, and requests evidence for the CSR representative’s absence and the court registry’s dispatch record. The six-page PDF includes the envelope, CSR request and cancellation order.
Open document pageThe record documents examination of the plaintiff, his written statement served on CSR, and fifteen days for further written evidence proposals. The hearing lasted from 10:30 to 11:35.
Open document pageThe plaintiff’s two-page statement sets out his qualifications of the 1979 and 1984 acts and their lifelong consequences. The hearing record confirms that Bojana Vujić received it and that a copy was given to the CSR representative.
Open document pageFollowing the hearing of 15 October, the plaintiff seeks the complete adoption and preceding records, proof of Branislav Čolak’s authority and status, and examination of the original identity evidence. He reaffirms his 2 October requests and separates the law of 1979/1984 from CSR’s conduct in 2025.
Open document pageMaja Petrović seeks time to respond to the plaintiff and retrieve earlier archive records. Bojana Vujić grants fifteen and thirty days; the next hearing is scheduled for 9 February 2026.
Open document pageCSR defends the 1979 adoption, points to copies already attached to the claim and describes separate file storage instead of identifying the preceding acts. It does not dispute the contents or authenticity of Milorad’s 1984 consent record. The heading again reverses the parties. Dated 27 November; received by the Basic Court on 2 December 2025.
Open document pageCSR lists archive documents and treats Vera’s statements about parentage and care as undisputed grounds for adoption. It dates the quotation to 6 April, whereas the confirmed transcription records 8 April; withdrawal of probate representation becomes a conclusion about relatives’ lack of care. The party labels are again reversed. Dated 22 December; received by the court on 24 December 2025.
Open document pageThe plaintiff answers CSR’s submission of 22 December, connects the probate and adoption records, and sets out his argument of nullity, violent assimilation and continuing institutional responsibility. The complete 75-page file preserves his detailed reasoning, historical facsimiles and accompanying transcriptions.
Open document pageThe P2.1435/24 record states that Milan Petrović maintains the claim, all submissions and all oral and written assertions, while Maja Petrović maintains the CSR’s opposition. Bojana Vujić’s panel closes the hearing at 10:51 and orders service of a written judgment. The author expressly states that nothing was read, contrary to two formulations in the record.
Open document pageJudgment P2.1435/2024 dated 9 February 2026 rejects the claim for absolute nullity of full adoption. It accepts official documents because their authors were authorized and qualified, accepts the plaintiff’s testimony where it agrees with those documents, and rejects the proposed witnesses. Eight judgment pages and the postal envelope are supplied in full.
Open document pageMilan Petrović challenges the entire judgment signed by Bojana Vujić, seeking reversal or a retrial. He identifies unanswered arguments from his June, October and January submissions, the absence of a demonstrated basis for replacing Cvita’s consent, Vera Radovanović’s accumulated roles and the unexplained second adoption in 1984.
Open document pageThe panel of Branka Perc, Aleksandra Pekez Kalinić and Marko Prentović affirms dismissal of the claim to annul the 1979 full adoption. Its reasons cite Article 31 while describing Article 30, without selecting between paragraphs 1 and 4. The judgment is dated 22 April; the Basic Court receipt stamp is dated 30 April 2026.
Open document pageMilan Petrović, through advocate Nikolaj Petronijević, challenges judgment Gž2 211/26. The revision addresses the confusion of Articles 30 and 31, the formula that conditions were fulfilled “in any event”, Cvita’s missing consent, Vera Radovanović’s combined roles, Pavle’s acknowledgment and the second adoption despite Article 40.
Open document pageMilan Petrović asks SVM for an official position on the forced assimilation, two illegal adoptions and severance of his Hungarian paternal identity described in his email, and announces that the response or its absence will be recorded.
Open document pageThe Prime Minister’s Office informs Milan Lakatoš Petrović that his inquiry is being referred to the Ministry Responsible for Social Relations and Culture for further handling, under file registration number ID_ME-IF/332/2/2026.
Open document pageThe Prime Minister’s Office forwards the inquiry to the ministry, with the author copied, under incoming registration number ME_ERK/16706/2026. The four-page record includes his complete English and Hungarian reminder sent on 19 May 2026.
Open document pageThe factual archive behind the legal argument, separated from the court filing layer.
The 1984 adoption is not a footnote. It uses the Vasić identity created by the 1979 full adoption as the procedural input for another transfer.
Open evidence pageThe consent problem is legal, not sentimental: Article 5 required parental consent unless strict replacement conditions existed.
Open evidence pageThe probate file preserves Milivoj Miletić in the Pavle / Pal Lakatoš heirship frame while the adoption track moves him into the Vasić construction.
Open evidence pageSeparate analytical briefs explain why the contradictions matter.
The present analytical question is not only what happened historically, but how the current court reacts once the contradiction is fully presented.
Open analysis pageThe second adoption proves that the first substitution did not close the matter. It became the input for a second identity transfer.
Open analysis pageThe case is a documented sequence of identity substitution: birth identity, judicial paternal line, probate trace, full adoption, second adoption, civil-register rewrite.
Open analysis pageThe issue is no longer only what happened in 1979. The issue is how present-day institutions respond when documentary contradictions are placed directly before them.
The same case carries different relevance for legal, institutional, and historical readers.
The case raises questions of historical legality, evidentiary method, identity continuity, and institutional deference.
The present significance lies in whether current institutions meaningfully review past acts or protect them through procedural continuity.
The dossier is relevant as a study in identity rights, access to remedy, and present-day judicial handling of historical irregularities.
The case also raises a question of family rupture, truth recovery, and institutional handling of identity destruction.
Broadcast appearances and public references that document the public dimension of the case.
Public broadcast appearance dealing with adoption, identity, and institutional wrongdoing.
Open media pageRepeated television appearances and publication on video platforms made the account of identity erasure and two unlawful adoptions publicly accessible, including to the competent institutions.
Author’s YouTube playlist title
The playlist brings together programmes and excerpts from Happy TV, Informer and Kurir, and from the AGAMEMNON production.
YouTube view counts cover online plays only; they do not measure the audience during television broadcasts.
I am convinced that the competent authorities followed my public appearances. Through television broadcasting, I addressed a much wider audience than the view counts of later uploads to YouTube show.
I had to investigate my own identity, obtain evidence, bring court proceedings and bear their burden myself. This is work that a serious state ought to carry out through its institutions. In the case of the Republic of Serbia, I use the expression “serious state” with explicit reservations.
Despite my public appearances and the evidence submitted, the burden of initiating and pursuing the proceedings remained on me. In good faith, I offered a settlement to resolve the matter peacefully and restore my original identity and origin. Nevertheless, my claim was rejected and my appeal dismissed.
Current public contact details and the channels used for legal, media, academic, and institutional communication.
Name: Milan Petrović (born as Milivoj Miletić) Email: [email protected] Location: Kragujevac, Serbia
For a focused inquiry about this dossier, write to [email protected]. Include your name, organisation and purpose, together with the relevant document or timeline link. Identify the source page and the question you would like to clarify. The published documents and translations can be consulted directly before contacting the author.