Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Sklep III DoR 49/2014 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2014:III.DOR.49.2014 AI generated

Supreme Court dismisses review request as statutory conditions under ZPP Art. 367.a were not met.

Case Number Sklep III DoR 49/2014
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court of Slovenia rejected the applicant's request to permit a review of the second-instance judgment. The applicant had previously won a primary claim for a land registry entry but lost a secondary claim regarding the debtor's ownership rights. The court denied the review application because the specific conditions required by Article 367.a of the Code of Civil Procedure were not satisfied.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 367.a of the Code of Civil Procedure; A review request is inadmissible if the applicant fails to demonstrate that the lower court's decision was based on a violation of law or a significant error in fact-finding.

Keywords

AI generated
Code of Civil Procedure review request admissibility criteria land registry entry ownership rights

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 367.a of the Code of Civil Procedure
Article 5, Paragraph 168 of the Enforcement and Security Act
AI generated
VSRS Sodba III Ips 77/2013
Appeal dismissed; creditor must prove title document exists before suing for registration of ownership on debtor.
VSL sklep III Cp 999/2000
Pritožbi se ugodi, sklep se razveljavi in se zadeva vrne sodišču prve stopnje v novo odločanje.
Sodba II Ips 406/96
Verbal land sale contract ratified despite formal requirements if social interests are not harmed.
VSL sodba I Cp 218/99
Court dismisses appeal upholding good faith possession and 20-year acquisitive prescription under ZTLR Art. 28. Good faith possession is presumed. Opposing party failed to rebut presumption with evidence.
VSL sklep II Cp 1494/2009
Appeal dismissed; land registry must verify effective legal title against registered owner before entry.

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

Predlog se zavrne.

[JEDRO]

Ker niso izpolnjeni pogoji, ki jih za dopustitev revizije določa 367.a člen ZPP, je Vrhovno sodišče predlog tožeče stranke za dopustitev revizije zavrnilo.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Tožeča stranka je zoper dolžnika (prvi toženec) in zemljiškoknjižno lastnico (druga toženka) vložila tožbo na podlagi določbe petega odstavka 168. člena Zakona o izvršbi in zavarovanju (ZIZ). Sodišče prve stopnje je primarnemu tožbenemu zahtevku, s katerim je tožeča stranka zahtevala, da druga toženka izstavi ustrezno zemljiškoknjižno listino, ugodilo. Sodišče druge stopnje je pritožbi druge toženke ugodilo ter zavrnilo tako primarni tožbeni zahtevek kot tudi podrejeni tožbeni zahtevek, s katerim je tožeča stranka zahtevala, da se pri nepremičnini vknjiži lastninska pravica v korist in na ime dolžnika (prvega toženca).

2. Tožeča stranka je zoper sodbo sodišča druge stopnje vložila predlog za dopustitev revizije.

3. Ker niso izpolnjeni pogoji, ki jih za dopustitev revizije določa 367.a člen Zakona o pravdnem postopku (ZPP), je Vrhovno sodišče predlog tožeče stranke za dopustitev revizije zavrnilo.