Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSL sklep I Cp 2901/2009 ECLI:SI:VSLJ:2009:I.CP.2901.2009 AI generated

Appeal dismissed; new specific power of attorney required for Supreme Court review under ZPP.

Case Number VSL sklep I Cp 2901/2009
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the first-instance court's rejection of the review petition. The appellant argued that a previously submitted power of attorney covered the review, but the court found no such document in the file. The court ruled that a new, specific power of attorney explicitly authorizing representation before the Supreme Court for the review procedure is mandatory under the Code of Civil Procedure.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

ZPP 95(2); ZPP 98(5): A new and specific power of attorney must be submitted for filing a review, explicitly designating the Supreme Court and the review procedure, as extraordinary remedies require a separate judicial determination.

Keywords

AI generated
power of attorney review procedure Supreme Court extraordinary remedy Code of Civil Procedure specific authorization procedural requirement

Cited Legislation

AI generated
ZPP 95(2)
ZPP 98(5)
ZPP 365(2)
ZPP 366
AI generated
VSL sklep I Cp 523/2015
Appeal court dismisses tenant's claim and allows landlord's appeal regarding civil vs. non-contentious procedure. The tenant's right to a suitable dwelling is a matter for civil court, not non-contentious proceedings. The court ruled that the first-instance court erred by applying non-contentious rules to a dispute over the existence of the tenant's right. The appeal court held that the tenant's claim for a suitable dwelling must be adjudicated in civil proceedings, not non-contentious ones. The tenant's appeal was dismissed as inadmissible because it did not challenge the substantive decision but rather the procedural classification of the claim. The landlord's appeal was allowed because the first-instance court incorrectly applied non-contentious procedure rules to a civil matter. The court decided that the tenant's right to a suitable dwelling under the Housing Act is a substantive right to be determined in civil court, not a procedural matter for non-contentious proceedings. The appeal court dismissed the tenant's appeal as inadmissible since it did not challenge the substantive decision but rather the procedural classification of the claim. The court allowed the landlord's appeal because the first-instance court incorrectly applied non-contentious procedure rules to a civil matter. The court decided that the tenant's right to a suitable dwelling under the Housing Act is a substantive right to be determined in civil court, not a procedural matter for non-contentious proceedings. The appeal court dismissed the tenant's appeal as inadmissible since it did not challenge the substantive decision but rather the procedural classification of the claim. The court allowed the landlord's appeal because the first-instance court incorrectly applied non-contentious procedure rules to a civil matter. The court decided that the tenant's right to a suitable dwelling under the Housing Act is a substantive right to be determined in civil court, not a procedural matter for non-contentious proceedings.
Sklep II Ips 309/2010
Supreme Court dismisses appeal for retrial when judgment was never served to the party.
Sklep II Ips 471/93
Supreme Court dismisses appeal against enforcement ruling, allowing only appeal against rejection of that appeal.
Sklep II Ips 49/95
Supreme Court dismisses appeal for procedure renewal due to failure to raise new evidence in prior appeal.
VSL Sklep I Cp 1351/2019
Appeal dismissed; mandatory lawyer representation required until renewal of proceedings decision becomes final. Mandatory lawyer representation required until renewal decision final; appeal dismissed for lack of counsel. Mandatory lawyer representation required until renewal decision final; appeal dismissed for lack of counsel.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

Pritožba se zavrne in se potrdi sklep sodišča prve stopnje.

[JEDRO]

Pooblastilo za zastopanje v revizijskem postopku mora biti ne samo novo (da izvira iz časa, ko je nastala pravica za vložitev revizije) temveč tudi posebno, v njem mora biti navedeno, da je dano za zastopanje pred Vrhovnim sodiščem v postopku revizije.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Sodišče prve stopnje je zavrglo revizijo tožeče stranke, ker njena pooblaščenka ob vložitvi revizije ni predložila novega pooblastila za vložitev izrednega pravdnega sredstva.

2. Zoper sklep se pritožuje tožeča stranka. Predlaga, da ga pritožbeno sodišče razveljavi in nadaljuje s postopkom revizije. Navaja, da je hkrati z revizijo pooblaščenec tožeče stranke predložil pooblastilo za vložitev in „vodenje postopka“ revizije, zato bi moralo prvostopenjsko sodišče pooblastilo prejeti. Po mnenju tožeče stranke to potrjuje tudi dejstvo, da je bila revizija poslana nasprotni stranki, ki je podala nanjo odgovor. Naproša, da sodišče ponovno preveri, ali se pooblastilo nahaja v spisu. Če se ta ne nahaja v spisu, se tožeča stranka zavezuje, da ga bo predložila v originalu, sedaj s pritožbo pa vlaga fotokopijo pooblastila, ki je bilo priloženo reviziji z dne 8. 6. 2009.

3. Tožena stranka na pritožbo ni odgovorila.

4. Pritožba ni utemeljena.

5. Prvostopenjsko sodišče je pravilno uporabilo relevantne določbe Zakona o pravdnem postopku (Ur. l. RS, št. 26/99 s kasnejšimi spremembami, od tu ZPP): Po določbi 2. odstavka 95. člena ZPP se mora za vložitev izrednih pravnih sredstev predložiti novo pooblastilo. To pa pomeni, da mora biti pooblastilo za zastopanje v revizijskem postopku ne samo novo (da izvira iz časa, ko je nastala pravica za vložitev revizije) temveč tudi posebno, v njem mora biti navedeno, da je dano za zastopanje pred Vrhovnim sodiščem v postopku revizije. Tudi s tem se izraža zakonodajalčev poudarek, da so izredna pravna sredstva izjema, saj predstavljajo poseg v pravnomočnost sodne odločbe. Zato naj bo odločitev za vložitev izrednega pravnega sredstva rezultata posebnega preudarka stranke, pa tudi njenega odvetnika, ki mora stranko pred prevzemom zastopanja v postopku z izrednimi pravnimi sredstvi v skladu s pravili odvetniške etike spet posebej opozoriti na stroškovni vidik, kar nujno vsebuje tudi oceno možnosti za uspeh (1).

6. Iz pravdnega spisa izhaja, da tožeča stranka 8. 6. 2009 hkrati z revizijo ni predložila sploh nobenega pooblastila. To jasno in nedvoumno izhaja iz dohodnega žiga (vloga je bila prejeta v treh izvodih brez prilog) in iz popisa ter vsebine spisa ter prilog. Sklepanje tožeče stranke, da je bilo v resnici drugače, ker je bila revizija poslana toženi stranki, je napačno. Pritožbeno sodišče je na prošnjo tožeče stranke to „ponovno preverilo“, z vpogledom v predmetni pravdni spis pa bi to kadarkoli lahko storila tudi tožeča stranka sama.

7. Pripravljenost naknadno predložiti pooblastilo je brez učinka. Prvostopenjsko sodišče je torej pravilno ravnalo, ko je revizijo tožeče stranke zavrglo brez poziva odvetnici, da (ustrezno) pooblastilo predloži (5. odst. 98. čl. ZPP).

8. Na podlagi 2. točke 365. člena v zvezi s 366. členom ZPP je bilo treba pritožbo zavrniti in izpodbijani sklep potrditi.

Glej več v Galič A., v Ude et al., Pravdni postopek, zakon s komentarjem, GV Založba in Uradni list, Ljubljana 2006, 1. knjiga, str. 396.