Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSL Sklep I Cp 1410/2018 ECLI:SI:VSLJ:2019:I.CP.1410.2018 AI generated

Appeal dismissed because no legal remedy exists against a higher court's decision confirming a first-instance judgment.

Case Number VSL Sklep I Cp 1410/2018
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's complaint, upholding the first-instance court's decision to reject the appeal. The appellant argued that their constitutional right to appeal was violated by the lack of a legal remedy against the higher court's confirmation of the first-instance judgment. The court ruled that since the first-instance judgment was final and the case did not involve a minor value dispute, only a revision was available, rendering the appeal inadmissible.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Art. 25 ustave RS; 8. odst. 458. čl. ZPP: No legal remedy exists against a higher court's decision confirming a first-instance judgment unless the case involves a minor value dispute, in which case only revision is permitted.

Keywords

AI generated
constitutional right to appeal finality of judgment legal remedy exhaustion revision procedure minor value dispute procedural inadmissibility confirmation of judgment

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Art. 25 ustave RS
8. odst. 458. čl. ZPP
Zoper pravnomočno sodbo je dovoljena le revizija, vendar ne v sporu majhne vrednosti, za kar je šlo v obravnavani zadevi (8. odst. 458. čl. ZPP).
2. tč. 365. čl. ZPP
Zato je bilo treba pritožbo zavrniti in sklep sodišča prve stopnje potrditi (2. tč. 365. čl. ZPP).
AI generated
VSL Sklep I Cpg 1173/2016
Appeal dismissed because final judgment precludes retrial or new judge under ZPP.
VSL sklep I Kp 1096/99
Appeal against second-instance judgment dismissed as inadmissible due to lack of statutory grounds under ZKP. The court rejected the appeal because the statute of limitations did not apply to the final judgment. The court ruled the appeal was inadmissible as it did not fall under the specific provision of the Criminal Procedure Act. The appeal was dismissed because the statute of limitations argument was irrelevant to the final judgment's validity. The court applied the correct legal interpretation of the Criminal Procedure Act regarding appeals. The decision confirms that appeals against final judgments require specific statutory grounds to be admissible.
VSL sklep I Cpg 110/2017
Appeal dismissed; failure to prove receipt of service notice prevents application of actual receipt date rule.
VSC Sklep I Cp 139/2021
Appeal against second-instance judgment dismissed as inadmissible under Civil Procedure Act rules.
VDSS Sklep Psp 273/2018
Appeal dismissed as untimely; claimant filed appeal after final appeal judgment became legally binding.

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 zavrne in se sklep sodišča prve stopnje potrdi.

[JEDRO]

Zoper sodbo višjega sodišča, ki potrdi sodbo sodišča prve stopnje, ni pritožbe. Res Ustava RS v 25. členu vsakomur zagotavlja pravico do pritožbe ali drugega pravnega sredstva proti odločbam sodišč in drugih organov. Tožencu ta ustavna pravica ni bila kršena, saj je imel pravico do pritožbe zoper sodbo, izdano v tej zadevi, ki jo je tudi izkoristi in je o njej pristojno sodišče tudi vsebinsko odločalo.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Prvostopenjsko sodišče je zavrglo pritožbo toženca z dne 24. 2. 2018 proti sodbi Višjega sodišča v Ljubljani I Cp 2358/2017 z dne 25. 1. 2017, ker taka pritožba po Zakonu o pravdnem postopku (ZPP) ni predvideno pravdno sredstvo.

2. Toženec v pritožbi zoper sodbo uveljavlja številne kršitve Ustave, mednarodnih pogodb in zakonov. Predlaga, naj pritožbeno sodišče pritožbi ugodi, izvede pošteno sojenje in upošteva vsa dejstva, pomembna za odločitev. Poleg razlogov, ki jih navaja v podkrepitev svojega prepričanja, da sojenje v tej zadevi ni bilo pošteno in da sodba ni pravilna in zakonita, meni, da ima pravico do pritožbe in zato predlaga, da se njegovi pritožbi ugodi.

3. Pritožba ni utemeljena.

4. Zoper sodbo višjega sodišča, ki potrdi sodbo sodišča prve stopnje, ni pritožbe. Res Ustava republike Slovenije v 25. čl. vsakomur zagotavlja pravico do pritožbe ali drugega pravnega sredstva proti odločbam sodišč in drugih organov. Tožencu ta ustavna pravica ni bila kršena, saj je imel pravico do pritožbe zoper sodbo, izdano v tej zadevi, ki jo je tudi izkoristi in je o njej pristojno sodišče tudi vsebinsko odločalo. Zoper pravnomočno sodbo je dovoljena le revizija, vendar ne v sporu majhne vrednosti, za kar je šlo v obravnavani zadevi (8. odst. 458. čl. ZPP).

5. Sklep sodišča prve stopnje je torej pravilen in zakonit. Zato je bilo treba pritožbo zavrniti in sklep sodišča prve stopnje potrditi (2. tč. 365. čl. ZPP).