Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSRS Sklep II DoR 100/2019 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2019:II.DOR.100.2019 AI generated

Supreme Court dismisses revision request as first-instance conditions under ZPP Art. 367a were not met.

Case Number VSRS Sklep II DoR 100/2019
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 revision against the second-instance judgment. The applicant argued that lower courts incorrectly applied the principle superficies solo cedit and should have ruled on the amended claim regarding co-ownership rights. The court determined that the specific legal conditions required to grant a revision under Article 367a of the Code of Civil Procedure were not satisfied.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

367.a odst. 1 ZPP; 367.c odst. 2 ZPP: A revision request is inadmissible if the applicant fails to demonstrate that the lower courts made a significant error in applying the law or interpreting facts, thereby violating the principle of legal certainty.

Keywords

AI generated
revision permission superficies solo cedit amended claim co-ownership rights Code of Civil Procedure

Cited Legislation

AI generated
367.a odst. 1 ZPP
367.c odst. 2 ZPP
AI generated
VSM Sodba I Cpg 362/2018
Appeal dismissed; transfer of lien right to successor does not apply when ownership change occurred in lienholder's sphere.
VDSS Sodba Pdp 446/2019
Appeal dismissed; employment contracts continued after employer change, invalidating severance claims against bankrupt former employer.
Sodba II Ips 51/2010
Future damage claims expire from the first ascertainable instance, interrupting prior claims only upon completion.
VSC Sodba Cp 230/2022
Appellate court upheld lower court's finding of good faith acquisition based on 20+ years of possession despite land registry errors. Good faith acquisition allowed under ZTLR. Good faith acquisition upheld after 20 years possession despite registry errors. Good faith acquisition allowed under ZTLR after 20 years possession. Good faith acquisition upheld after 20 years possession despite registry errors. Good faith acquisition allowed under ZTLR after 20 years possession. Good faith acquisition upheld after 20 years possession despite registry errors.
VSL sodba II Cp 348/2015
Court dismisses claim for ownership based on good faith possession when possessor knew of defects.

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 dovolilo spremembo tožbe z dne 22. 2. 2016 (I. točka izreka). Zavrnilo je tožbeni zahtevek na ugotovitev, da je tožnik solastnik v idealnem deležu do 1/10 nepremičnin z ID oznakami ..., k.o. ... Zavrnilo je tudi zahtevek na prednostno plačilo terjatve v znesku 53.200,00 EUR z zakonskimi zamudnimi obrestmi od 10. 7. 2014 do plačila, in sicer iz stroškov stečajnega postopka St 568/2012 (III. točka izreka). Tožniku je naložilo, da tožencu plača pravdne stroške z zakonskimi zamudnimi obrestmi (IV. točka izreka).

2. Sodišče druge stopnje je tožnikovo pritožbo zavrnilo.

3. Zoper sodbo sodišča druge stopnje je tožnik vložil predlog za dopustitev revizije in predlagal dopustitev revizije glede naslednjih pravnih vprašanj:

– Kakšne so pravice lastnika zemljišča na stavbi, ki deloma stoji na njegovi nepremičnini?

- Ali mora sodišče v primeru privilegirane spremembe tožbe, ki je posledica odtujitve sporne stvari ali pravice med pravdo, odločiti o spremenjenem zahtevku, ali lahko kljub temu odloči o zahtevku, ki ga je tožnik sprva uveljavljal?

4. Predlagatelj meni, da sta nižji sodišči napačno uporabili pravilo superficies solo cedit in da bi morali odločiti o spremenjenem tožbenem zahtevku.

5. Predlog ni utemeljen.

6. 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.