Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSRS sklep III DoR 35/2016 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2016:III.DOR.35.2016 AI generated

Supreme Court dismisses appeal permission request due to attorney's power of attorney being issued before client gained filing rights.

Case Number VSRS sklep III DoR 35/2016
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 dismissed the applicant's request for permission to file an appeal against the second-instance court's rejection of the first-instance lawsuit. The applicant's attorney submitted a power of attorney dated May 21, 2015, while the applicant only acquired the right to file an appeal on January 21, 2016. The court ruled that the power of attorney was not 'new' because it was issued prior to the client's eligibility to file extraordinary legal remedies, thereby invalidating the procedural basis for the appeal permission request.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

95. člen ZPP; 98. člen ZPP: A power of attorney submitted by an attorney for extraordinary legal remedies is considered new only if issued after the client acquires the right to file such remedies; otherwise, the request for permission to appeal is inadmissible.

Keywords

AI generated
power of attorney validity extraordinary legal remedies new power of attorney requirement attorney filing rights appeal permission procedure ZPP procedural rules timing of legal representation

Cited Legislation

AI generated
95. člen ZPP
98. člen ZPP
AI generated
VDSS sklep Pdp 774/2016
Appeal dismissed because the applicant lacks standing and no further appeal exists against rejection of an appeal.
VSL sklep I Cpg 1367/2000
Appeal allowed: Court rules founders are legal successors allowing continued litigation after company deletion.
VDSS Sklep Pdp 299/2022
Appeal dismissed; termination date determined by employee's knowledge of rights violation, not employer's notice date.
VDSS sklep Psp 253/2015
Appeal dismissed as late filed; claimant mailed appeal via regular mail after 15-day deadline expired.
VDSS sklep Psp 149/2015
Appeal against second-instance labor court judgment dismissed as inadmissible under ZPP Art. 343(1).

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 zavrže.

[JEDRO]

Za vložitev izrednih pravnih sredstev mora odvetnik predložiti novo pooblastilo. Ta zahteva velja tudi za vložitev predloga za dopustitev revizije.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Sodišče prve stopnje je zavrglo tožbo tožeče stranke. Sodišče druge stopnje je zavrnilo pritožbo tožeče stranke in potrdilo izpodbijani sklep sodišča prve stopnje.

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

3. Predlog ni dovoljen.

4. Za vložitev izrednih pravnih sredstev mora odvetnik predložiti novo pooblastilo (drugi odstavek 95. člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku, v nadaljevanju ZPP). Ta zahteva velja tudi za vložitev predloga za dopustitev revizije. Po ustaljeni sodni praksi se šteje, da je pooblastilo novo, če je bilo izdano v času, ko je njegov izdajatelj že pridobil pravico vložiti izredno pravno sredstvo.

5. Sklep sodišča druge stopnje je bil izdan 21. 1. 2016, pooblaščenec tožeče stranke pa je predlogu za dopustitev revizije predložil pooblastilo z dne 21. 5. 2015. Ker pooblastilo izvira iz časa, ko tožeča stranka še ni pridobila pravice vložiti predlog za dopustitev revizije, pooblastilo ni novo. Vrhovno sodišče je zato predlog za dopustitev revizije zavrglo (peti odstavek 98. člena ZPP v zvezi s 377. členom ZPP).