Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSRS Sklep II DoR 385/2020 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2021:II.DOR.385.2020 AI generated

Supreme Court dismisses review application as inadmissible due to failure to meet statutory review conditions under ZPP.

Case Number VSRS Sklep II DoR 385/2020
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 review against the second-instance judgment. The applicant argued that the enforcement of a property sale violated the co-owner's rights, claiming the co-owner did not know about the other's actions and was not the debtor. The court found the request inadmissible because the applicant failed to satisfy the specific conditions required for a review under the relevant procedural law.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

367.a ZPP; 367.c ZPP: A review application is inadmissible if the applicant cannot demonstrate that the lower court's decision violates the law or is otherwise not legally justified according to the statutory criteria for review.

Keywords

AI generated
review application inadmissibility co-ownership enforcement property sale ZPP review conditions

Cited Legislation

AI generated
367.a ZPP
367.c ZPP
324. ZPP
AI generated
VSRS Sklep II DoR 145/2019
Supreme Court dismisses review application as conditions under ZPP Art. 367a are not met.
Sklep II Ips 739/2008
Appeal dismissed because plaintiffs are ordinary co-litigants with a single non-differentiated claim value.
VSL Sklep II Ip 435/2020
Appeal dismissed; landlord's claim for eviction via notarized lease termination lacks direct enforceability basis.
VSL Sklep I Cp 403/2018
Appeal dismissed; owner of unregistered property is debtor in enforcement, not third party, so no standing for objection suit.
VSL Sodba I Cpg 823/2019
Appeal dismissed; ownership claim invalid due to abandonment and agreement to block enforcement void against public order.

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]

Predlog se zavrne.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Sodišče prve stopnje je zavrnilo zahtevek tožeče stranke za ugotovitev, da izvršba na nepremičnino, podrobneje navedeno v izreku sodbe, ni dopustna (I. točka izreka).

2. Sodišče druge stopnje je pritožbo tožeče stranke zavrnilo in potrdilo sodbo sodišča prve stopnje.

3. Zoper sodbo sodišča druge stopnje tožeča stranka vlaga predlog za dopustitev revizije in postavlja naslednji vprašanji: »Ali je mogoče oz. možno domnevati podajo soglasja oz. nenasprotovanja solastnika k pravnemu poslu v primeru skupnega premoženja, ko le-ta sploh ni vedel za ravnanje drugega solastnika in drugi od solastnikov ni dolžnik? Ali predstavlja vzpostavljena domneva podanega soglasja oz. nenasprotovanja solastnika pravnemu poslu drugega solastnika v primeru skupnega premoženja, ko drugi solastnik ni dolžnik nerazmeren in prekomeren poseg v zasebno lastnino solastnika skupnega premoženja v primeru izvršbe na celotno nepremičnino?«

4. Predlog ni utemeljen.

5. Ker niso izpolnjeni pogoji za dopustitev revizije iz 367.a člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku (v nadaljevanju ZPP), je Vrhovno sodišče na podlagi drugega odstavka 367.c člena ZPP predlog tožeče stranke zavrnilo.

6. Senat je odločitev sprejel soglasno (sedmi odstavek 324. člena ZPP).