Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSRS sklep III DoR 89/2014 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2014:III.DOR.89.2014 AI generated

Supreme Court allows review regarding state compensation liability under Article 26 of the Constitution when a buyer fails to register property after a public auction.

Case Number VSRS sklep III DoR 89/2014
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Partially Allowed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court of Slovenia granted the review request concerning the legality of lower courts' decisions on state compensation liability. The plaintiff purchased property at a public auction but could not register it as owner due to a transfer decision, leading to a claim for damages under Article 26 of the Constitution. The court found the conditions for review met regarding this specific constitutional question and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 26 of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia; Article 367.a(1) of the Act on Civil Procedure; A review is permitted when lower courts rule that elements for state compensation liability are absent in cases where a buyer fails to register property acquired at a public auction.

Keywords

AI generated
state compensation liability public auction property Article 26 Constitution land registry registration review admissibility civil procedure law property transfer failure

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 26 of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia
Article 367.a(1) of the Act on Civil Procedure
AI generated
VSL sodba I Cpg 264/2011
Contract dispute where court applied general intent over literal text to reject claim for development services. Claim dismissed as workers only performed system administration.
VDSS sklep Pdp 1178/2011
Appeal court remands labor dispute case for retrial due to first instance court's failure to follow safety expert instructions.
VSL Sodba II Cp 1084/2017
Appeal dismissed; court held no expert needed for minor injury pain assessment based on medical records.
Sodba III Ips 150/99
Insurance premium liability falls on the policyholder, not the lessee, per insurance contract terms.
VSM Sodba I Cpg 303/2018
Appeal dismissed; court upheld first instance judgment on evidence assessment under ZPP Art. 8.

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

Revizija se dopusti

glede vprašanja, ali je materialnopravno pravilna odločitev sodišča prve in druge stopnje, da - v primeru, ko kupec na javni dražbi kupi nepremičnino in se na podlagi sklepa o izročitvi nepremičnine ne more vpisati v zemljiško knjigo kot lastnik - niso podani elementi odškodninske odgovornosti države na podlagi 26. člena Ustave RS?

[JEDRO]

Revizija se dopusti

glede vprašanja, ali je materialnopravno pravilna odločitev sodišča prve in druge stopnje, da - v primeru, ko kupec na javni dražbi kupi nepremičnino in se na podlagi sklepa o izročitvi nepremičnine ne more vpisati v zemljiško knjigo kot lastnik - niso podani elementi odškodninske odgovornosti države na podlagi 26. člena Ustave RS.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Sodišče prve stopnje je delno ugodilo tožbenemu zahtevku in toženi stranki naložilo plačilo 25.246,20 EUR z zakonskimi zamudnimi obrestmi. V presežku (za 23.993,80 EUR) je tožbeni zahtevek zavrnilo.

2. Sodišče druge stopnje je prvostopenjsko sodbo spremenilo in tožbeni zahtevek zavrnilo v celoti.

3. Vrhovno sodišče je reviziji tožeče stranke ugodilo in sodbo sodišča druge stopnje razveljavilo ter zadevo vrnilo sodišču druge stopnje v novo sojenje.

4. Sodišče druge stopnje je v ponovljenem sojenju pritožbi tožene stranke ugodilo in izpodbijano sodbo v ugodilnem delu spremenilo tako, da je tožbeni zahtevek tudi v tem delu, to je za znesek 25.246,20 EUR, zavrnilo.

5. Zoper sodbo sodišča druge stopnje tožeča stranka vlaga predlog za dopustitev revizije.

6. Pogoji za dopustitev revizije iz prvega odstavka 367.a člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku so izpolnjeni glede (prvega) predlaganega pravnega vprašanja, navedenega v izreku tega sklepa. Vrhovno sodišče je zato revizijo v tem obsegu dopustilo.