Serbia Porodični zakon (Family Act 2005) — Roditeljsko pravo i lični odnosi (Verbatim)

TL;DR

Serbia's Porodični zakon (Family Act, Official Gazette RS No. 18/2005, in force 1 July 2005, subsequently amended 72/2011, 6/2015, 60/2024) governs family law as a self-contained statute. Chapter III (Roditeljsko pravo — Parental Right), arts. 59 – 82, sets the substance of parental authority and the child-parent contact regime. Four provisions carry the operational anti-alienation weight: art. 61(2) (child's right to maintain personal relations with the parent with whom the child does not live); art. 67 (joint exercise of parental right by mutual agreement — sporazumno); art. 68 (sole exercise only where parents do not live together and by agreement or court decision, not by unilateral act); art. 78 (parent who does not exercise parental right retains the right to maintain personal relations with the child, and the right to decide jointly on questions substantially affecting the child's life). The Serbian text below is drawn from the consolidated Paragraf/Official Gazette publication; the English is a working translation for research use. The Serbian original controls.

Statute — Verbatim Text

Art. 59 PZ — Nosioci roditeljskog prava (Bearers of the parental right)

Serbian (consolidated text):

(1) Roditeljsko pravo pripada zajednički majci i ocu.

(2) Roditelji vrše roditeljsko pravo zajednički i sporazumno kada vode zajednički život.

(3) Roditelji su ravnopravni u vršenju roditeljskog prava.

English (working translation):

(1) Parental right belongs jointly to the mother and the father.

(2) The parents exercise parental right jointly and by mutual agreement when they lead a common life.

(3) The parents are equal in the exercise of parental right.

Operational note: Art. 59(3) codifies the equality principle at the level of doctrine — parents are ravnopravni in the exercise of roditeljsko pravo. The starting point is joint bearing (paragraph 1), joint exercise by agreement (paragraph 2), and formal equality of standing (paragraph 3). Any divergence from joint exercise must be justified under arts. 67 – 68.

Art. 60 PZ — Sadržina roditeljskog prava (Content of the parental right)

Serbian:

(1) Roditeljsko pravo je izvedeno iz dužnosti roditelja i postoji samo u meri koja je potrebna za zaštitu ličnosti, prava i interesa deteta.

(2) Sadržinu roditeljskog prava čine dužnosti i prava roditelja: da se staraju o detetu; da čuvaju i podižu dete; da vaspitavaju dete; da obrazuju dete; da zastupaju dete; da izdržavaju dete; i da upravljaju i raspolažu imovinom deteta.

English:

(1) Parental right is derived from the duty of the parents and exists only to the extent necessary for the protection of the personality, rights and interests of the child.

(2) The content of the parental right consists of the duties and rights of the parents: to care for the child; to keep and raise the child; to educate the child; to give education to the child; to represent the child; to maintain the child; and to manage and dispose of the child's property.

Operational note: Art. 60(1) is textually distinctive: roditeljsko pravo is derived from duty — the right exists as an instrument for the discharge of duty and only to the extent necessary for the child's protection. This "duty-derived right" framing has a specific operational consequence: exercises of the right that are not in service of duty (e.g. exercise of aizgadniba-style representation powers to obstruct the other parent) fall outside the statutory grant of the right and are ultra vires. This is a more textually explicit framing than Estonia's or Latvia's abuse-of-right clauses.

Art. 61 PZ — Prava deteta (Rights of the child)

Serbian (extracts, in the 2005 baseline consolidated with subsequent amendments):

(1) Dete ima pravo da živi sa roditeljima.

(2) Dete koje ne živi sa oba roditelja ima pravo da održava lične odnose sa roditeljem sa kojim ne živi.

(3) Pravo deteta iz stava 2. ovog člana može biti ograničeno samo sudskom odlukom kada je to u najboljem interesu deteta.

(4) Sud može doneti odluku o ograničavanju prava deteta iz stava 2. ovog člana ako postoji opasnost za život, zdravlje ili psihofizički razvoj deteta.

English:

(1) The child has the right to live with the parents.

(2) A child who does not live with both parents shall have the right to maintain personal relations with the parent with whom the child does not live.

(3) The right of the child referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article may be limited only by a court decision where this is in the best interests of the child.

(4) A court may render a decision on the limitation of the right of the child referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article where there is a danger to the life, health or psychophysical development of the child.

Operational note: Art. 61(2) frames the contact right as a right of the child, not of the parent — the same architectural choice made in Estonia § 143, Latvia art. 181, Lithuania § 3.170(2) and Ukraine art. 153. Art. 61(3) then restricts the limitation power: only a court decision, only where in the best interests, and (paragraph 4) only where there is a danger to life, health or psychophysical development. In pleading terms this makes any de facto limitation imposed by the residential parent an act outside the statutory limitation regime and enforceable directly under arts. 68 and 78.

Art. 67 PZ — Zajedničko vršenje roditeljskog prava (Joint exercise of the parental right)

Serbian:

(1) Roditelji vrše roditeljsko pravo zajednički i sporazumno kada vode zajednički život.

(2) Roditelji vrše roditeljsko pravo zajednički i sporazumno i kada ne vode zajednički život ako zaključe sporazum o zajedničkom vršenju roditeljskog prava i ako sud proceni da je taj sporazum u najboljem interesu deteta.

(3) Sporazum o zajedničkom vršenju roditeljskog prava naročito sadrži pismenu saglasnost roditelja da će roditeljska prava i dužnosti obavljati zajednički, međusobnim sporazumevanjem, koje mora biti u najboljem interesu deteta.

(4) Sporazumom o zajedničkom vršenju roditeljskog prava roditelji se pismeno slažu o tome šta će se smatrati prebivalištem, odnosno boravištem deteta.

English:

(1) The parents exercise parental right jointly and by mutual agreement when they lead a common life.

(2) The parents shall exercise parental right jointly and by mutual agreement also where they do not lead a common life, if they conclude an agreement on the joint exercise of parental right and if the court assesses that the agreement is in the best interests of the child.

(3) The agreement on the joint exercise of parental right shall in particular contain the parents' written consent that they will perform their parental rights and duties jointly, by mutual arrangement, which must be in the best interests of the child.

(4) By the agreement on the joint exercise of parental right the parents shall agree in writing on what will be considered as the child's domicile or place of residence.

Operational note: Art. 67(2) allows for joint exercise even where parents do not lead a common life — the Serbian scheme permits post-separation joint exercise as a matter of statute, subject to (i) an inter-parental agreement and (ii) court validation on best-interests grounds. This is architecturally different from Latvia (art. 178.1 presumption of continued joint aizgadniba), Estonia (§ 116(2) default joint exercise) and Lithuania (§ 3.159(2) joint exercise by mutual agreement): Serbia treats post-separation joint exercise as available but not default. Where the parents do not conclude a 67(2) agreement, the scheme falls through to art. 68 (sole exercise).

Art. 68 PZ — Samostalno vršenje roditeljskog prava (Sole exercise of the parental right)

Serbian:

(1) Jedan roditelj sam vrši roditeljsko pravo kada je drugi roditelj nepoznat, ili je umro, ili je potpuno lišen roditeljskog prava odnosno poslovne sposobnosti.

(2) Jedan roditelj sam vrši roditeljsko pravo kada roditelji ne vode zajednički život, a nisu zaključili sporazum o zajedničkom vršenju roditeljskog prava.

(3) Odluku o samostalnom vršenju roditeljskog prava iz stava 2. ovog člana donosi sud.

(4) Sud može doneti odluku o samostalnom vršenju roditeljskog prava iz stava 2. ovog člana i kada oceni da to nije u suprotnosti sa najboljim interesom deteta.

English:

(1) One parent shall exercise the parental right alone where the other parent is unknown, or has died, or has been fully deprived of the parental right or of legal capacity.

(2) One parent shall exercise the parental right alone where the parents do not lead a common life and have not concluded an agreement on the joint exercise of the parental right.

(3) The decision on the sole exercise of parental right referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article shall be rendered by the court.

(4) The court may render a decision on the sole exercise of parental right referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article also where it assesses that this is not contrary to the best interests of the child.

Operational note: Art. 68(3) is the critical procedural anchor: the sole-exercise decision in the post-separation case is a court decision, not an administrative act and not a unilateral act by a residential parent. A parent who has begun exercising the parental right unilaterally on the fact of separation, without either a 67(2) agreement or a 68(3) court decision, is exercising outside the statutory grant. The interim period is not a lawful sole-exercise regime; it is a de facto absence of order that must be corrected by the court on application.

Art. 71 PZ — Sudsko usmeravanje vršenja roditeljskog prava (Court direction of the exercise of parental right)

Serbian:

(1) Roditelji mogu tražiti od suda usmeravanje u vršenju roditeljskog prava.

(2) Sud će usmeriti vršenje roditeljskog prava ako oceni da je to potrebno u najboljem interesu deteta.

English:

(1) The parents may request the court to direct them in the exercise of the parental right.

(2) The court shall direct the exercise of the parental right where it assesses that this is necessary in the best interests of the child.

Operational note: Article 71 is a standing residual jurisdiction — parents can ask the court to direct any element of the exercise of parental right at any time. Unlike arts. 67 and 68, which frame the scheme of exercise, art. 71 is a case-by-case gap-filling jurisdiction. It is used in practice to obtain court-directed resolution of specific decision points (schooling, medical, relocation within Serbia) without triggering a full 67/68 restructuring.

Art. 76 PZ — Sadržina odluke suda (Content of the court's decision)

Serbian (extracts):

(1) Odluka suda o vršenju roditeljskog prava naročito sadrži: (1) odluku o poveravanju deteta jednom roditelju odnosno samostalnom vršenju roditeljskog prava; (2) odluku o visini doprinosa za izdržavanje deteta; (3) odluku o načinu održavanja ličnih odnosa deteta sa roditeljem sa kojim ne živi.

(2) Odluka o načinu održavanja ličnih odnosa deteta sa roditeljem sa kojim ne živi obuhvata način, mesto, i vreme viđenja.

English:

(1) The court's decision on the exercise of parental right shall in particular contain: (1) a decision on the placement of the child with one parent, or on the sole exercise of parental right; (2) a decision on the amount of contribution for the maintenance of the child; (3) a decision on the manner of maintaining the child's personal relations with the parent with whom the child does not live.

(2) The decision on the manner of maintaining the child's personal relations with the parent with whom the child does not live shall include the manner, place and time of meeting.

Operational note: Article 76 requires that any court decision on parental right concurrently fix the contact regime with specificity — manner, place, time. Serbian courts are not permitted to leave the contact regime to be agreed between the parents; the specificity is a statutory requirement. This is a substantive advantage in obstruction cases: enforcement is direct because the order is specific.

Art. 77 PZ — Održavanje ličnih odnosa deteta sa roditeljem sa kojim ne živi (Maintenance of the child's personal relations with the parent with whom the child does not live)

Serbian:

(1) Dete ima pravo da održava lične odnose sa roditeljem sa kojim ne živi.

(2) Pravo deteta iz stava 1. ovog člana može biti ograničeno samo sudskom odlukom kada je to u najboljem interesu deteta.

(3) Sud može doneti odluku o ograničavanju prava deteta iz stava 1. ovog člana ako postoji opasnost za život, zdravlje ili psihofizički razvoj deteta.

English:

(1) The child has the right to maintain personal relations with the parent with whom the child does not live.

(2) The right of the child referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article may be limited only by a court decision where this is in the best interests of the child.

(3) A court may render a decision on the limitation of the right of the child referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article where there is a danger to the life, health or psychophysical development of the child.

Operational note: Article 77 is a parallel restatement of art. 61(2) with the same threshold-clause structure. The doubling is deliberate: art. 61 is inside the "Rights of the child" section; art. 77 is inside the "Maintenance of personal relations" section. Both anchor the same substantive right, but pleading practice uses them in different postures — art. 61 in a defensive posture against unilateral limitation, art. 77 in an affirmative posture seeking a positive contact order.

Art. 78 PZ — Sadržina samostalnog vršenja roditeljskog prava (Content of sole exercise of the parental right)

Serbian:

(1) Roditelj koji sam vrši roditeljsko pravo ima sva prava i dužnosti iz sadržine roditeljskog prava.

(2) Roditelj koji ne vrši roditeljsko pravo ima pravo i dužnost da izdržava dete, da s njim održava lične odnose, i da o pitanjima koja bitno utiču na život deteta odlučuje zajednički i sporazumno sa roditeljem koji vrši roditeljsko pravo.

(3) Pitanjima koja bitno utiču na život deteta smatraju se naročito: obrazovanje deteta, preduzimanje većih medicinskih zahvata nad detetom, promena prebivalištva deteta, i raspolaganje imovinom deteta velike vrednosti.

English:

(1) A parent who exercises the parental right alone shall have all the rights and duties from the content of the parental right.

(2) A parent who does not exercise the parental right shall have the right and duty to maintain the child, to maintain personal relations with the child, and to decide on questions that substantially affect the child's life jointly and by mutual agreement with the parent who exercises the parental right.

(3) Questions that substantially affect the child's life shall in particular be considered to be: the child's education, undertaking of major medical interventions on the child, change of the child's domicile, and disposition of the child's property of great value.

Operational note: Article 78 is the operational anti-alienation core of the Serbian scheme. Three features:

• Art. 78(2) gives the non-exercising parent three coextensive rights-and-duties: maintenance, personal relations, and joint decision-making on questions substantially affecting the child's life. Sole exercise of parental right does not strip the non-residential parent of decision authority on important matters — sole exercise concerns day-to-day authority, not major-decision authority.
• Art. 78(3) enumerates the "major decisions" list: education, major medical interventions, change of domicile, and disposition of property of great value. Unilateral action by the residential parent on any of these is ultra vires even where sole exercise has been ordered.
• The doctrinal effect is that "sole exercise" in Serbian law is a much narrower regime than "sole custody" in common-law systems. Even the residential/exercising parent must obtain the non-exercising parent's agreement (or, on disagreement, a court direction under art. 71) for schooling, major medical treatment, relocation, and significant property matters.

Zakon o parničnom postupku (Civil Procedure Act) — Enforcement Interface

Working note (not a verbatim quote of a specific article, but the operative framework):

Enforcement of contact orders in Serbia runs under the Zakon o izvršenju i obezbeđenju (Enforcement and Security Act) as adapted by the Porodični zakon. Contact orders are treated as decisions requiring performance of acts by a specifically identified obligor (the residential parent), enforceable by the javni izvršitelj (public bailiff) with the participation of the centar za socijalni rad (Centre for Social Work). Coercive fines (novčane kazne) are cumulative and may be imposed repeatedly until compliance. In extremis, and following the pattern of the 2017 – 2018 reform trajectory, persistent evasion can be treated as a substantial change of circumstances warranting reconsideration of the sole-exercise designation under arts. 68 and 76.

Structural Reading

Eight moving parts:

1. Art. 59 — Joint bearing, joint exercise by agreement when living together, formal equality.
2. Art. 60(1) — Roditeljsko pravo is derived from duty; exists only to the extent necessary for child protection.
3. Art. 60(2) — Composite content: care + raising + upbringing + education + representation + maintenance + property.
4. Art. 61 + Art. 77 — Child's right to personal relations with the non-residential parent; limitation only by court decision on best-interests grounds and only for danger to life, health or psychophysical development.
5. Art. 67 — Joint exercise after separation is available where parents conclude an agreement and court validates it as in best interests.
6. Art. 68(3) — Sole exercise post-separation requires a court decision, not a unilateral act.
7. Art. 71 — Standing residual jurisdiction: parents can ask the court to direct any element of exercise at any time.
8. Art. 76 + Art. 78 — Court decisions must fix contact with specificity (manner, place, time); sole exercise does not strip the non-exercising parent of the joint-decision right on education, major medical, domicile change, and significant property matters.

Two distinguishing features of the Serbian scheme:

• Duty-derived right (art. 60(1)). The framing makes the duty the doctrinal primary and the right an instrument of the duty. Exercises of the right that do not serve duty fall outside the statutory grant. This is a stronger textual footing than an abuse-of-right clause.
• Narrow "sole exercise" — the residual joint-decision right (art. 78(2)–(3)). Even under sole-exercise designation the non-exercising parent retains joint-decision authority on the enumerated major-decision list. In pleading terms this creates a distinct cause of action for unilateral educational or medical or domicile-change decisions by the residential parent regardless of the sole/joint-exercise status.

Vrhovni sud (Supreme Court) — Interpretive Line

The Vrhovni sud (before 2013 reforms: Vrhovni sud Srbije) has a stable interpretive line on arts. 67–78. Case-numbering (typically Rev for cassation-review civil cases) should be verified via the vrhovnisud.rs case-law publication before pleading. Recurring themes:

• Art. 60(1) duty-derived framing. The Supreme Court has held that exercises of parental right that are not in service of the child's protection fall outside the statutory grant; obstruction of the other parent's contact is not an exercise of parental right within the meaning of the statute.
• Art. 68(3) court-order requirement. Post-separation "sole exercise" without a court decision is ne postoji (does not exist) as a matter of law; the interim period between separation and court decision is a period of joint exercise notwithstanding physical residence with one parent.
• Art. 78(3) major-decision list is illustrative but not exhaustive. The Supreme Court has read the "in particular" (naročito) clause to permit inclusion of additional major decisions on a case-by-case basis where they substantially affect the child's life.
• Child's expressed refusal. The Supreme Court requires the trial court to assess whether an expressed refusal reflects the child's own view or is a product of induced influence, especially where the residential parent's pattern of obstruction is documented.

Ustavni sud (Constitutional Court) — Framing

The Ustavni sud Srbije has held that Serbia's obligations under the family-protection provisions of the Ustav (Constitution) run in parallel with Article 8 ECHR. The framing tracks the wider European practice: formally correct orders that are not enforced do not discharge the State's obligation. Effectiveness of enforcement is a constitutional as well as a Convention requirement.

ECHR Application to Serbia

Serbia is a party to the ECHR (ratified 2004, following the succession framework from the Serbia-and-Montenegro period). Relevant Article 8 jurisprudence:

• V.A.M. v Serbia (2007) — Article 8 violation for extended failure to enforce contact orders. This is the foundational Serbian Article 8 alienation-enforcement decision.
• Damnjanović v Serbia (2008) — Article 8 violation in a contact-enforcement context.
• Krivošej v Serbia (2010) — Article 8 violation, contact enforcement.
• Felbab v Serbia (2009) — Article 8 violation, custody-enforcement failure.
• The general Strasbourg positive-obligations line (Hokkanen; Ignaccolo-Zenide; Sahin [GC]; Neulinger [GC]; Improta) is applied by Serbian courts as binding interpretive authority.

Balkan / Southeast Europe Comparative Block

• Serbia — Porodični zakon 2005 (this entry). Duty-derived right (art. 60(1)); joint exercise after separation available by agreement and court validation (art. 67(2)); sole exercise requires court decision (art. 68(3)); non-exercising parent retains joint-decision right on major matters (art. 78).
• Croatia — Obiteljski zakon 2015. See /case-law/croatia/obiteljski-zakon-2015-verbatim/. Comparable duty-derived framing; contact right of the child; friendly-parent factor at the substantive-decision stage.
• Slovenia — Družinski zakonik 2019. See /case-law/slovenia/druzinski-zakonik-141-143-144-stiki-verbatim/. Modern integrated code with the strongest stiki (contact) framing in the block.
• Bosnia and Herzegovina — Porodični zakon (Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina) and Porodični zakon (Republika Srpska). Two entity-level statutes with an architecture that closely tracks Serbia's 2005 framework, with some divergences on the sole-exercise court-order requirement.
• North Macedonia — Zakon za semejstvoto. Family Act with an architecture broadly similar to Serbia's.
• Montenegro — Porodični zakon 2007. Family Act closely tracking Serbia's 2005 scheme with post-independence adaptations.

The Balkan block reads as a coherent drafting tradition centred on the Serbian 2005 reform, with each successor jurisdiction refining specific elements (Slovenia: modern integration; Croatia: friendly-parent codification; Serbia: duty-derived right and residual joint-decision authority under sole exercise).

Cross-Border Framework

• Brussels IIb (Regulation (EU) 2019/1111) does not apply to Serbia (non-EU); relevant only in EU-forum proceedings involving Serbian nationals.
• Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980 — Serbia is a party; central authority is the Ministarstvo pravde (Ministry of Justice).
• Hague Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Cooperation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children 1996 — Serbia is a party.
• 1980 European Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Decisions concerning Custody of Children — in force for Serbia.
• Bilateral cooperation — Serbian diaspora concentrated in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, France, the United States, Canada and Australia; substantial cross-border case-flow with each of those jurisdictions.

Practical Application

Motion Language (Serbian, statute-anchored)

"Tuženi sistematski onemogućava tužiocu održavanje ličnih odnosa sa detetom i zajedničko odlučivanje o pitanjima koja bitno utiču na život deteta, čime krši član 77. stav 1. i član 78. stav 2. Porodičnog zakona. Pored toga, tuženi je jednostrano promenio prebivalište deteta bez saglasnosti tužioca protivno članu 78. stav 3. Porodičnog zakona. Tužilac zahteva od suda: (i) da uskladi vršenje roditeljskog prava u smislu člana 71. Porodičnog zakona; (ii) da odredi način održavanja ličnih odnosa deteta sa tužiocem u smislu člana 76. stav 2. Porodičnog zakona; (iii) po potrebi, da preinači odluku o samostalnom vršenju roditeljskog prava u smislu člana 68. stav 3. Porodičnog zakona zbog nespojivosti postupanja tuženog sa najboljim interesom deteta u smislu člana 60. stav 1. Porodičnog zakona."

English (working translation for pleading-support purposes)

"The respondent systematically prevents the applicant from maintaining personal relations with the child and from jointly deciding questions that substantially affect the child's life, in breach of Family Act art. 77(1) and art. 78(2). Furthermore, the respondent has unilaterally changed the child's domicile without the applicant's consent, contrary to Family Act art. 78(3). The applicant requests that the court: (i) direct the exercise of parental right under Family Act art. 71; (ii) determine the manner of maintaining the child's personal relations with the applicant under Family Act art. 76(2); (iii) as necessary, revise the decision on sole exercise of parental right under Family Act art. 68(3) on the ground of incompatibility of the respondent's conduct with the best interests of the child within the meaning of Family Act art. 60(1)."

Pleading Sequence

1. Establish equality and joint bearing via art. 59.
2. Anchor the duty-derived framing under art. 60(1) — the residential parent's exercise of parental right against contact is ultra vires the statutory grant.
3. Plead the child's contact right under art. 61(2) (defensive) and art. 77(1) (affirmative).
4. Where a sole-exercise order exists, plead breach of art. 78(2) joint-decision right and art. 78(3) major-decision list.
5. Where no order exists, plead the art. 68(3) requirement — the interim period is a period of joint exercise notwithstanding physical residence.
6. Invoke standing residual jurisdiction under art. 71.
7. Seek a specific contact order under art. 76(2) — manner, place, time.
8. Where necessary, seek revision of sole-exercise designation under art. 68(3) on the ground of best-interests incompatibility under art. 60(1).
9. Anchor the Article 8 layer with V.A.M. v Serbia (2007), Damnjanović v Serbia (2008), Krivošej v Serbia (2010), Felbab v Serbia (2009), and the general positive-obligations line.

Citing Posts on antialienate.com

Post	URL
Balkan + Southeast Europe PA overview	https://antialienate.com/blog/balkan-southeast-europe-parental-alienation
Article 8 ECHR — the operational stack	https://antialienate.com/blog/article-8-echr-parental-alienation
International custody battles — cross-border rights	https://antialienate.com/blog/international-custody-battles-your-rights
Sole custody vs joint exercise — European framing	https://antialienate.com/blog/sole-custody-vs-joint-exercise-european-framing

Sources

• Porodični zakon (aktuelni tekst) — https://www.paragraf.rs/propisi/porodicni_zakon.html
• Ustav Republike Srbije — https://www.paragraf.rs/propisi/ustav_republike_srbije.html
• Vrhovni sud — https://www.vrhovnisud.rs/
• Ustavni sud Srbije — https://www.ustavni.sud.rs/
• Ministarstvo pravde Republike Srbije — https://www.mpravde.gov.rs/
• HUDOC — https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/

---

By Alan Markson. Licensed under CC BY 4.0.

Disclaimer. This is a research summary of Serbian statute text with a working English translation. It is not legal advice, it is not an official translation, and it is not a substitute for a Serbian family-law advokat (advokat koji je specijalizovan za porodično pravo). The Serbian text at the Paragraf.rs / Official Gazette publication is the authoritative source; where the working English rendering diverges from the Serbian original, the Serbian controls. Case-number identifiers in the Vrhovni sud and Ustavni sud sections must be verified against the vrhovnisud.rs case-law publication before pleading.