Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSRS Sklep II DoR 514/2020 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2020:II.DOR.514.2020 AI generated

Appeal against a ruling rejecting a request to annul a finality clause is inadmissible under ZPP Art. 384(1).

Case Number VSRS Sklep II DoR 514/2020
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 dismissed the heir's request for permission to appeal a second-instance decision rejecting an annulment of a finality clause. The lower courts had already ruled that the finality clause was valid and binding. The court held that such a ruling does not constitute a final decision under Article 384(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, thereby precluding further appellate review.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 384(1) of the Civil Procedure Act; A ruling rejecting a request to annul a finality clause is not a final decision under Article 384(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, and thus an appeal is inadmissible.

Keywords

AI generated
finality clause annulment request Civil Procedure Act admissibility of appeal second instance decision

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 384(1) of the Civil Procedure Act
Article 377 of the Civil Procedure Act
Article 324(7) of the Civil Procedure Act

Cited Case Law

AI generated
III Ips 163/2006
Supreme Court dismisses review against second-instance ruling where finality occurred earlier via default judgment expiration.
II Ips 276/2003
Appeal against a ruling to invalidate a jurisdiction clause is dismissed as the ruling does not end the proceedings. The court held that only rulings concluding the proceedings allow for an appeal. The court rejected the appeal because the ruling to invalidate the jurisdiction clause did not conclude the proceedings. The court ruled that appeals are only permitted against rulings that legally conclude the proceedings. The court determined that the ruling to invalidate the jurisdiction clause did not legally conclude the proceedings. The court found that the ruling to invalidate the jurisdiction clause did not legally conclude the proceedings.
VIII Ips 541/2008
Appeal against correction of judgment validity dates dismissed as not concluding the proceedings.
II DoR 220/2012
Appeal against enforcement certificate revocation is inadmissible as it is not a final judgment under ZPP Art. 384(1).
VIII Ips 5/2012
Appeal against ruling on enforceability certificate dismissed as it does not conclude main proceedings. Appeal requires final judgment on merits.
II DoR 83/2013
Appeal against dismissal of request for retrial and time-barred appeal is not a final judgment allowing review.
III DoR 72/2017
Supreme Court dismisses appeal against rejection of appeal against jurisdiction clause due to lack of finality.
III DoR 93/2019
Sodišče prve stopnje je zavrnilo predlog tožene stranke za razveljavitev klavzule o pravnomočnosti sodbe Okrožnega sodišča v Kranju I Pg 68/2017 z dne15.
AI generated
VSL Sklep I Cp 1244/2020
Appeal dismissed; court may correct clerical errors in final inheritance judgments without invalidating enforceability clauses.
VSL Sklep I Cp 1091/2018
Appeal dismissed because appellant is neither an heir nor a legatee and thus not a party to the succession proceedings.
VSL sklep I Cp 2353/2011
Appeal dismissed; service by fiction on legal entities requires notice letter per ZPP analogy.
VSK sklep I Cp 701/2014
Appeal dismissed; land registry court cannot review finality clause in land registration proceedings.
VSM Sklep II Ip 308/2023
Appeal dismissed; revocation of enforceability certificate cannot challenge higher court's final judgment.

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 zavrže.

[JEDRO]

Sklep, s katerimi je bil pravnomočno zavrnjen predlog za razveljavitev klavzule pravnomočnosti, ni sklep v smislu prvega odstavka 384. člena ZPP, s katerim bi se postopek pravnomočno končal, zato revizija zoper njega ni dovoljena in je Vrhovno sodišče tudi ne more dopustiti.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Sodišče prve stopnje je zavrnilo dedičev predlog za razveljavitev klavzule pravnomočnosti sklepa o dedovanju Okrajnega sodišča v Ljubljani opr. št. II D 303/1999 z dne 11. 1. 2018.

2. Sodišče druge stopnje je zavrnilo dedičevo pritožbo in potrdilo izpodbijani sklep.

3. Dedič je zoper sklep sodišča druge stopnje vložil predlog za dopustitev revizije.

4. Predlog ni dovoljen.

5. Po prvem odstavku 384. člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku (v nadaljevanju ZPP) lahko stranke vložijo revizijo zoper sklep sodišča druge stopnje, s katerim je bil postopek pravnomočno končan. Sklep, s katerimi je bil pravnomočno zavrnjen predlog za razveljavitev klavzule pravnomočnosti, ni sklep v smislu prvega odstavka 384. člena ZPP, s katerim bi se postopek pravnomočno končal, zato revizija zoper njega ni dovoljena in je Vrhovno sodišče tudi ne more dopustiti. 1

6. Vrhovno sodišče je predlog za dopustitev revizije zato zavrglo (377. člen ZPP v zvezi s četrtim odstavkom 384. člena ZPP).

7. Vrhovno sodišče je odločalo v senatu, navedenem v uvodu sklepa. Odločbo je sprejelo soglasno (sedmi odstavek 324. člena ZPP).

1 Enako sklepi VS RS III Ips 163/2006 z dne 27. 3. 2007, II Ips 276/2003 z dne 15. 4. 2004, VIII Ips 541/2008 z dne 6. 9. 2010, II DoR 220/2012 z dne 20. 9. 2012, VIII Ips 5/2012 z dne 16. 10. 2012 ter II DoR 83/2013 z dne 21. 3. 2013. III DoR 72/2017 z dne 22. 9. 2017, III DoR 93/2019 z dne 26. 8. 2019.