Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSRS Sklep II DoR 112/2016 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2016:II.DOR.112.2016 AI generated

Appeal and leave to appeal against boundary adjustment ruling in non-contentious proceedings are inadmissible.

Case Number VSRS Sklep II DoR 112/2016
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 applicants' request for leave to appeal against a boundary adjustment ruling issued in non-contentious proceedings. The lower courts had adjusted property boundaries between specific parcel numbers, and the second instance court partially rejected the applicants' appeal while confirming the first instance's decision. The Supreme Court ruled that appeals are generally not permitted in non-contentious boundary disputes under the Non-Contentious Procedure Act, making the leave request inadmissible.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

35. člen Zakona o nepravdnem postopku; 14. poglavje Zakona o nepravdnem postopku; Revizija v nepravdnih postopkih za ureditev meja ni dovoljena in ne more biti dopuščena.

Keywords

AI generated
non-contentious procedure boundary adjustment property boundary appeal inadmissible Supreme Court Slovenia

Cited Legislation

AI generated
35. člen Zakona o nepravdnem postopku
Njeno dovoljenost mora določiti zakon (35. člen Zakona o nepravdnem postopku, v nadaljevanju ZNP).
14. poglavje Zakona o nepravdnem postopku
374. člen Zakona o pravdnem postopku
377. člen Zakona o pravdnem postopku

Cited Case Law

AI generated
II DoR 317/2013
Supreme Court dismisses appeal request as revision is not permitted in boundary adjustment proceedings.
AI generated
VSK Sklep I Cp 209/2022
Appeal dismissed; boundary defined by 1978 coordinates and 1991 wall possession establishes stronger right. Court upheld first instance boundary determination. Appeal dismissed; boundary defined by 1978 coordinates and 1991 wall possession establishes stronger right. Court upheld first instance boundary determination.
VSL Sklep I Cp 639/2020
Appeal dismissed; fence boundary determined by actual use rather than statutory presumption of shared ownership.
VSL Sklep I Cp 563/2020
Boundary determination stands; neighbor's ownership registration consent is irrelevant to boundary line findings.
VSL sklep I Cp 1473/94
Appeal court partially allowed appeal on costs and dismissed appeal on standing due to boundary agreement.
VSRS Sklep II DoR 10/2025
Supreme Court dismisses review application regarding boundary dispute where first instance court applied stronger right criterion.

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]

Revizija in predlog za dopustitev revizije zoper odločbo o ureditvi meje, izdano v nepravdnem postopku, nista dovoljena.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Sodišče prve stopnje je na predlog predlagateljev uredilo mejo med nepremičnino s parc. št. 572/2, k. o. ..., in nepremičnino s parc. št. 1251/1, k. ..., ter mejo med nepremičnino s parc. št. 576/2, k. o. ..., in nepremičnino s parc. št. 1251/1, k. o. ...

2. Sodišče druge stopnje je pritožbo predlagateljev deloma zavrglo, deloma pa zavrnilo in potrdilo sklep sodišča prve stopnje.

3. Predlog za dopustitev revizije vlagajo predlagatelji.

4. Predlog ni dovoljen.

5. V nepravdnih postopkih revizija praviloma ni dovoljena. Njeno dovoljenost mora določiti zakon (35. člen Zakona o nepravdnem postopku, v nadaljevanju ZNP). Le, če je revizija dovoljena, jo lahko Vrhovno sodišče tudi dopusti.

6. Pred sodiščema nižjih stopenj je tekel nepravdni postopek za ureditev meje. Po pravilih iz štirinajstega poglavja ZNP v mejnih sporih revizija ni posebej dovoljena, zato je tudi ni mogoče dopustiti (1).

7. Predlog za dopustitev revizije ni dovoljen in ga je Vrhovno sodišče zavrglo (smiselno po določbah 374. in 377. člena ZPP).

----

(1) Primerjaj tudi odločbo Vrhovnega sodišča II DoR 317/2013.