Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSRS Sklep II DoR 349/2017 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2018:II.DOR.349.2017 AI generated

Supreme Court dismisses review application as statutory conditions for admissibility were not met.

Case Number VSRS Sklep II DoR 349/2017
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 argued that lower courts incorrectly applied the Denationalization Act instead of the Agrarian Communities Act regarding property restitution. The court found the legal question raised did not meet the specific criteria for admissibility under the Code of Civil Procedure.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

367.a odst. 1 ZPP; 367.c odst. 2 ZPP: A review application is inadmissible if the legal question raised does not meet the statutory conditions for admissibility, such as the existence of a significant legal issue or a violation of the principle of legal certainty.

Keywords

AI generated
review application admissibility Code of Civil Procedure property restitution law agrarian communities act denationalization act legal question significance supreme court review

Cited Legislation

AI generated
367.a odst. 1 ZPP
367.c odst. 2 ZPP
AI generated
VSL sodba II Cp 169/2013
Utility costs for co-owners are allocated based on actual usage, not ideal shares, under unjust enrichment principles.
VSL Sodba I Cp 1232/2018
Appeal dismissed; court upheld debt recognition as explicit agreement to join debt, not mere agency.
VSM sklep I Cp 689/2016
Appeal granted; lower court's default judgment revoked due to improper service of process on defendant.
VDSS sodba Pdp 278/2009
Collective agreement severance pay applies to individual dismissals if more favorable than statutory law.
VSRS Sodba II Ips 113/2016
Supreme Court dismisses appeal, ruling courts cannot re-examine administrative denationalization decisions due to res judicata.

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]

Pogoji iz 367.a člena ZPP za dopustitev revizije niso izpolnjeni.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Sodišče prve stopnje je ugodilo tožbenemu zahtevku, da naj toženka tožnici plača 24.006,57 EUR z zakonskimi zamudnimi obrestmi.

2. Sodišče druge stopnje je toženkino pritožbo zavrnilo.

3. Zoper sodbo sodišča druge stopnje je toženka vložila predlog za dopustitev revizije in predlagal dopustitev revizije glede pravnega vprašanja:

- ali se za odločanje pravnih naslednikov upravičencev za vrnitev podržavljenega premoženja po Zakonu o ponovni vzpostavitvi agrarnih skupnosti ter vrnitvi njihovega premoženja in pravic (v nadaljevanju ZPVAS) uporabljajo določila iz 12. člena Zakona o denacionalizaciji (v nadaljevanju ZDen) ali določila 8. in 9. člena ZPVAS?

Predlagateljica meni, da o tem vprašanju ni sodne prakse in da sta nižji sodišči izhajali iz napačnega prepričanja, da se za določitev upravičencev za vrnitev podržavljenega premoženja agrarnim skupnostim namesto ZPVAS uporabi ZDen.

4. Predlog ni utemeljen.

5. Predpostavke za dopustitev revizije iz prvega odstavka 367.a člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku niso izpolnjene. Skladno z določbo drugega odstavka 367.c člena istega zakona je zato Vrhovno sodišče predlog zavrnilo.