Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSM Sklep I Cp 202/2019 ECLI:SI:VSMB:2019:I.CP.202.2019 AI generated

Appeal dismissed because the filing agent lacked a lawyer's license or bar exam qualification under ZPP.

Case Number VSM Sklep I Cp 202/2019
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The appeal court rejected the objection lodged by the client's representative against a first-instance land boundary ruling. The representative, who was not a licensed attorney and failed to prove bar exam completion, attempted to file the appeal. The court dismissed the appeal as inadmissible because only attorneys or individuals with a bar exam may represent parties in appeals before the higher court.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

4th paragraph of Article 343 of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 87, paragraph 2 of the Civil Procedure Act: An appeal is inadmissible if filed by a person without the requisite qualification, specifically an attorney or a holder of a bar exam.

Keywords

AI generated
inadmissible appeal qualification requirement bar exam holder civil procedure act legal representation higher court filing unqualified agent

Cited Legislation

AI generated
4th paragraph of Article 343 of the Civil Procedure Act
Article 87, paragraph 2 of the Civil Procedure Act
Article 356 in conjunction with Article 347 of the Civil Procedure Act
AI generated
Sklep II Ips 756/93
Supreme Court quashes first-instance boundary ruling for procedural flaws and remands case.
VSL sklep I Cp 2486/2016
Appeal dismissed; boundary set by fair assessment after no stronger right proven and no prior possession found.
VSL Sklep II Cp 549/2024
Appeal dismissed; boundary set by strongest right criterion and cadastral data without error found.
UPRS Sodba II U 26/2019-46
Administrative court allows appeal against land boundary decision, ruling administrative procedure does not preclude judicial boundary determination.
VSL Sklep II Cp 393/2018
Appeal dismissed; court boundary fixed by final administrative decision per stronger right doctrine. Appeal rejected as boundary already legally settled by final administrative ruling.

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

Pritožba se zavrže.

[JEDRO]

Pritožba je nedovoljena, če jo je vložila oseba, ki ni imela te pravice (četrti odstavek 343. člena ZPP). Pooblaščenec predlagatelja pravice vložiti pritožbo ni imel, saj ni odvetnik in tudi ni izkazal, da bi imel opravljen pravniški državni izpit, zato je pritožbeno sodišče njegovo pritožbo zavrglo (356. člen v zvezi s 347. členom ZPP).

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Z izpodbijanim sklepom je sodišče prve stopnje določilo vrednost spornega predmeta, določilo mejo med parcelama št. 19/50 in 19/48, oboje k.o. P. ter odločilo, da je skica geodeta J. L. sestavni del sklepa.

2. Tak sklep izpodbija pooblaščenec predlagatelja L. P. Predlaga, da se njegovi pritožbi v celoti ugodi.

3. Pritožba ni dovoljena.

4. Pritožbo je vložil pooblaščenec predlagatelja, ki ni odvetnik in niti ne trdi, da bi imel opravljen pravniški državni izpit (na kar je bil pravilno opozorjen v pravnem pouku). Po določilu drugega odstavka 87. člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku - v nadaljevanju ZPP je lahko v postopku pred višjim sodiščem pooblaščenec samo odvetnik ali druga oseba, ki je opravila pravniški državni izpit.

5. Pritožba je nedovoljena, če jo je vložila oseba, ki ni imela te pravice (četrti odstavek 343. člena ZPP). Pooblaščenec predlagatelja pravice vložiti pritožbo ni imel, saj ni odvetnik in tudi ni izkazal, da bi imel opravljen pravniški državni izpit, zato je pritožbeno sodišče njegovo pritožbo zavrglo (356. člen v zvezi s 347. členom ZPP).