Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSRS Sklep II DoR 361/2019 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2019:II.DOR.361.2019 AI generated

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

Case Number VSRS Sklep II DoR 361/2019
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 to allow a review of the second-instance judgment. The defendant argued that the court should have reconsidered the enforceability of a notarial deed that allegedly did not meet the definition of a notarial deed under the Enforcement Act. The court determined that the specific criteria outlined in Article 367.a of the Civil Procedure Act were not satisfied, leading to the dismissal of the review request.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 367.a of the Civil Procedure Act; A review application is admissible only if it addresses a legal issue of significant importance for legal certainty, uniform application of law, or legal development, and the Supreme Court found these conditions unmet in this instance.

Keywords

AI generated
Civil Procedure Act Review Application Notarial Deed Enforcement Act Legal Certainty Supreme Court Dismissal of Review

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 367.a of the Civil Procedure Act
Article 367.c of the Civil Procedure Act
Article 23 of the Enforcement Act
AI generated
VSL sodba I Cpg 1515/2015
Court dismisses appeal against bank's liability for stolen check, upholding duty of care for professionals.
VSL sodba II Cpg 917/2016
Appeal dismissed; small claims procedure time limits end at defendant's last pleading date, excluding later facts.
VSL Sodba I Cp 2077/2020
Appeal dismissed; court upheld first-instance judgment on unpaid reserve fund contributions in a small-value dispute.
VSM Sodba I Cp 481/2018
Appeal dismissed; court upheld first instance judgment on debt and refused discretionary assessment due to lack of evidence.
VSL sodba I Cpg 662/2016
Appeal dismissed; court held specific document requests required under ZPP Art. 228, not vague 'all documentation'.

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 ohranilo v veljavi sklep o izvršbi Okrajnega sodišča v Ljubljani VL 106143/2015 z dne 15. 9. 2015 v prvem in tretjem odstavku izreka, po katerem toženec dolguje tožniku 27.904,70 EUR z zakonskimi zamudnimi obrestmi in izvršilne stroške. 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 vprašanja, ali lahko sodišče obdrži v veljavi sklep o izvršbi, ki je bil izdan na podlagi verodostojne listine, ki ne ustreza pojmu verodostojne listine iz 23. člena Zakona o izvršbi in zavarovanju. Sprašuje tudi, ali ima sodišče diskrecijsko pravico, da spreminja jasna procesna pravila v meri, ki pomembno vpliva na odločitev sodišča.

4. Predlog ni utemeljen.

5. Vrhovno sodišče dopusti revizijo, če je od njegove odločitve mogoče pričakovati odločitev o pravnem vprašanju, pomembnem za zagotovitev pravne varnosti, enotne uporabe prava ali za razvoj prava preko sodne prakse (prvi odstavek 367.a člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku, v nadaljevanju ZPP). Vrhovno sodišče je ugotovilo, da navedeni pogoji za dopustitev revizije niso podani, zato je predlog zavrnilo (drugi odstavek 367.c člena ZPP).