Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSRS sklep III DoR 89/2015 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2015:III.DOR.89.2015 AI generated

Supreme Court dismisses review application against appeal rejection due to non-compliance with Article 367a of the Civil Procedure Act.

Case Number VSRS sklep III DoR 89/2015
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 for permission to file a review against the appellate court's dismissal of her appeal. The applicant failed to prove she submitted her appeal via certified mail as required by Article 112 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the first-instance court had already dismissed her claim. Consequently, the Supreme Court found the statutory conditions for granting a review were not met under Article 367a of the Civil Procedure Act.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 367a of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 367c of the Civil Procedure Act: A review application is inadmissible if the applicant cannot demonstrate compliance with the specific procedural requirements for filing an appeal, such as proof of certified mail delivery.

Keywords

AI generated
review application Civil Procedure Act appeal filing certified mail procedural deadline dismissal of appeal supreme court jurisdiction

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 367a of the Civil Procedure Act
Article 367c of the Civil Procedure Act
Article 112 of the Civil Procedure Act

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 tožnice v skladu z drugim odstavkom 367.c člena ZPP zavrnilo.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Prvostopenjsko sodišče je izdalo sodbo, s katero je zavrnilo tožbeni zahtevek. Zoper sodbo je tožnica vložila pritožbo, ki jo je prvostopenjsko sodišče s sklepom zavrglo, ker je na sodišče prispela prepozno. Pritožbeno sodišče je zavrnilo pritožbo tožnice zoper sklep o zavrženju pritožbe, saj je v bistvenem presodilo, da glede na drugi odstavek 112. člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku (v nadaljevanju ZPP) tožnica ustrezne oddaje pritožbe kot „poslane po pošti priporočeno“ ni uspela izkazati.

2. Tožnica je vložila predlog za dopustitev revizije proti sklepu pritožbenega sodišča, s katerim je bil potrjen prvostopenjski sklep o zavrženju pritožbe.

3. Ker niso izpolnjeni pogoji, ki jih za dopustitev revizije določa 367.a člen ZPP, je Vrhovno sodišče predlog tožnice v skladu z drugim odstavkom 367.c člena ZPP zavrnilo.