Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSRS Sklep II DoR 544/2019 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2019:II.DOR.544.2019 AI generated

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

Case Number VSRS Sklep II DoR 544/2019
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 to permit a review of the second-instance judgment. The applicant argued that the Ombudsman for Human Rights should have standing as a party under specific provisions of the Civil Procedure Act. The court determined that the strict statutory requirements for admitting a review were not satisfied in this instance. Consequently, the application was dismissed because the anticipated legal certainty and uniform application of law were not at stake.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

367.a(1) ZPP; 367.c(2) ZPP: A review application is admissible only if it can be expected to resolve a legal issue of significant importance for legal certainty, uniform application of law, or legal development, and the Supreme Court found these conditions unmet.

Keywords

AI generated
review application admissibility standing of Ombudsman Civil Procedure Act legal certainty requirement supreme court jurisdiction

Cited Legislation

AI generated
367.a(1) ZPP
367.c(2) ZPP

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 z izpodbijanim sklepom tožbo zoper prvo toženo stranko zavrglo.

2. Sodišče druge stopnje je pritožbo tožeče stranke zavrnilo.

3. Zoper sodbo sodišča druge stopnje je tožeča stranka vložila predlog za dopustitev revizije in predlagala dopustitev revizije glede naslednjih vprašanj:

— Ali je Varuh človekovih pravic lahko pravdna stranka po drugem ali prvem odstavku 76. člena ZPP?

— Ali je Varuhu človekovih pravic priznati status stranke v predmetnem pravdnem postopku po tretjem odstavku 76. člena ZPP?

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).