Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSRS Sklep II DoR 312/2020 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2021:II.DOR.312.2020 AI generated

Supreme Court allows review to determine if a will by a vulnerable testator is void due to moral unacceptability.

Case Number VSRS Sklep II DoR 312/2020
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Partially Allowed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court of Slovenia granted the petition for leave to appeal regarding the validity of a will executed by a vulnerable testator. The first-instance court dismissed the plaintiff's claim for the will's nullity, while the second-instance court upheld this decision. The Supreme Court determined that the review meets the statutory criteria for a significant legal issue requiring uniform application of the law.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Zakon o pravdnem postopku, prvi odstavek 367.a člena: Review is permitted when the decision may be expected to provide a solution to a legal issue of importance for the assurance of legal certainty, uniform application of law or development of law through judicial practice.

Keywords

AI generated
moral unacceptability will validity vulnerable testator abuse of incapacity review of judgment legal certainty Slovenian Civil Code

Cited Legislation

AI generated
prvi odstavek 367.a člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku
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).
AI generated
VSL Sodba II Cp 1867/2021
Appeal dismissed; will and conditions binding heirs; discrepancy is evidentiary error not contradiction.
VSC Sodba Cp 488/2018
Appeal dismissed; court held surprise of law protects against loss of argumentation, not factual surprise from evidence evaluation.
VSL sodba II Cp 628/99
Court holds that a legible mark on a will counts as a valid handwritten signature under inheritance law.
Sklep II Ips 430/2003
Appeal dismissed because the disputed property value of 100,000 tolarers did not meet the 1 million threshold. The court rejected the appeal as inadmissible due to insufficient monetary value. The Supreme Court of Slovenia upheld the first-instance judgment. The appeal was rejected because the disputed property value did not exceed the statutory threshold for appeals. The court ruled that the appeal was inadmissible due to the low value of the disputed property. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal because the value was below the legal limit. The appeal was rejected as the disputed value was under the required threshold. The court found the appeal inadmissible due to the insufficient monetary value of the case. The appeal was dismissed because the property value did not reach the statutory limit for appeals.
VSRS sklep II Ips 276/2014
Supreme Court allows revocation of appeal court ruling to retry invalid will case due to changed legal practice.

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

Revizija se dopusti glede vprašanja: Ali sestava oporoke zakonitega dediča v primeru namerne zlorabe bolnega in opravilno nesposobnega oporočitelja z namenom pridobiti si premoženjsko korist, na drugi strani pa prikrajšati ter iz dedovanja izključiti drugega zakonitega dediča, predstavlja moralno nevzdržno ravnanje, ki terja za posledico ničnost take oporoke?

[JEDRO]

Revizija se dopusti glede vprašanja ali sestava oporoke zakonitega dediča v primeru namerne zlorabe bolnega in opravilno nesposobnega oporočitelja z namenom pridobiti si premoženjsko korist, na drugi strani pa prikrajšati ter z dedovanja izključiti drugega zakonitega dediča, predstavlja moralno nevzdržno ravnanje, ki terja za posledico ničnost take oporoke.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Sodišče prve stopnje je zavrnilo tožbeni zahtevek, s katerim je tožnik uveljavljal ničnost oporoke A. A. z dne 22. 5. 2012 (I. točka izreka). Tožbo je v delu, ki se glasi na ugotovitev ničnosti izjave o preklicu oporoke, podane 26. 6. 2013 pred notarjem ..., zavrglo (II. točka izreka).

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

3. Zoper sodbo sodišča druge stopnje tožnik vlaga predlog za dopustitev revizije in postavlja vprašanje: »Ali sestava oporoke zakonitega dediča v primeru namerne zlorabe bolnega in opravilno nesposobnega oporočitelja z namenom pridobiti si premoženjsko korist, na drugi strani pa prikrajšati ter z dedovanja izključiti drugega zakonitega dediča predstavlja moralno nevzdržno ravnanje, ki terja za posledico ničnost take oporoke?«

4. Predlog je 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). Ti pogoji so v obravnavanem primeru izpolnjeni glede vprašanja, navedenega v izreku tega sklepa. Vrhovno sodišče je zato revizijo dopustilo.

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