Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSRS Sklep II DoR 190/2019 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2019:II.DOR.190.2019 AI generated

Supreme Court dismisses review application as statutory conditions for admissibility under ZPP are not met.

Case Number VSRS Sklep II DoR 190/2019
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 defendant's application for permission to file a review against the second-instance judgment. The defendant argued that the first-instance court incorrectly ruled on whether a property owner could demand active changes or removal of items from another's land. The court determined that the specific legal questions raised did not meet the strict criteria for a review under the Code of Civil Procedure. Consequently, the application was dismissed because the necessary conditions for admissibility were not fulfilled.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

367.a odst. 1 ZPP; 367.c odst. 2 ZPP: An application for permission to file a review is inadmissible if the legal questions raised do not meet the statutory requirements for admissibility under the Code of Civil Procedure.

Keywords

AI generated
Code of Civil Procedure review admissibility property owner rights active land changes removal of items supreme court review ZPP article 367

Cited Legislation

AI generated
367.a odst. 1 ZPP
367.c odst. 2 ZPP
AI generated
VSK Sodba I Cp 208/2017
Appeal dismissed; prior ownership suit does not bar enforcement of property transfer claim.
VSL Sodba I Cp 252/2017
Appeal dismissed; prior final judgment on title overrides land registry entry for property owner status.
VSL sodba in sklep I Cp 2850/2015
Appeal partially allowed; appeal against judgment regarding second defendant dismissed due to procedural defect.
VSC sodba Cp 18/2015
Appeal dismissed; ownership of land is a prerequisite for protection against disturbance under Slovenian law.
VSL Sodba I Cp 1629/2022
Appeal dismissed; eviction order upheld as legally sufficient and procedurally correct under Slovenian law.

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 razsodilo, da je toženec dolžan v roku 15 dni vrniti prosto oseb in svojih stvari v neposredno in izključno posest tožnika nepremičnino z ID znakom 000-1, ki v naravi obsega hišo ter dvorišče in vrt okoli hiše, in v roku 15 dni iz te nepremičnine odstraniti leseno lopo, odpadni gradbeni material, smeti in motorna vozila. Odločilo je, da je toženec dolžan tožniku povrniti pravdne stroške.

2. Sodišče druge stopnje je toženčevo pritožbo zavrnilo.

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

− Ali lahko lastnik nepremičnine zahteva od ne-lastnika nepremičnine, da na njegovi nepremičnini izvede aktivna ravnanja, s katerimi spremeni substanco nepremičnine ali odstrani premičnine iz nepremičnine lastnika, katerih pa ne-lastnik ni lastnik?

− Ali lahko lastnik na konkludenten način dovoli najemniku uporabo nepremičnine?

− Ali je obstajala pravna podlaga za uporabo nepremičnine?

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.