Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSC Sklep Cp 97/2020 ECLI:SI:VSCE:2020:CP.97.2020 AI generated

Appeal dismissed due to lack of legal interest after side intervention decision became final.

Case Number VSC Sklep Cp 97/2020
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The court dismissed the appeal filed by two parties against a first-instance judgment ordering them to pay damages and legal costs. The appellants argued for the rejection of the claim or annulment of the judgment, but the court found their legal interest in appealing had vanished following the final decision on their side intervention. Consequently, the appeal was rejected under the relevant procedural statutes, and the appellants were ordered to bear their own litigation costs.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Zakon o pravdnem postopku (ZPP) 351. člen; 343. člen: An appeal is inadmissible if the appellant lacks a legal interest, which is a procedural prerequisite; once a decision on side intervention becomes final, the appellant's legal interest disappears because no improvement in their legal position is possible.

Keywords

AI generated
legal interest appeal side intervention procedural prerequisite final decision litigation costs

Cited Legislation

AI generated
351. člen in 343. člen Zakona o pravdnem postopku
Zato je bilo potrebno njuno pritožbo zavreči (351. člen in 343. člen Zakona o pravdnem postopku - v nadaljevanju ZPP).
prvi odstavek 165. člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku
prvi odstavek 154. člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku
AI generated
VSL Sodba I Cpg 661/2017
Appeal partially allowed; default judgment upheld on debt but corrected on legal fees calculation.
VSL sklep in sodba I Cpg 713/2004
Service of process to a legal entity via any employee present at the office is valid under ZPP.
VSL Sodba II Kp 10279/2016
Appeal court modifies sentence for multiple crimes by ordering combined fines and community service. Appeal court modifies sentence for multiple crimes by ordering combined fines and community service.
VSL sodba I Cp 1843/2012
Appeal dismissed; court upheld first-instance ruling on damages for unauthorized real estate transfer. Dismissed appeal; court upheld first-instance damages ruling for unauthorized real estate transfer. Dismissed appeal; court upheld first-instance damages ruling for unauthorized real estate transfer.
VSM Sodba IV Kp 20011/2017
Court dismisses appeal against conviction for contract fraud, rejecting defense's claim that fault is not a constitutive element.

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

I. Pritožba se zavrže.

II. Pritožnika sama krijeta stroške tega pritožbenega postopka.

[JEDRO]

Pravni interes za pritožbo je procesna predpostavka, brez katere ni vsebinskega odločanja o pritožbi.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Z uvodoma navedeno zamudno sodbo je sodišče prve stopnje toženi stranki naložilo, da prvo tožeči in drugo tožeči stranki plača vsakemu 12.500,00 EUR s pripadajočimi zakonskimi zamudnimi obrestmi ter jima povrne pravdne stroške.

2. Zoper sodbo sta se pravočasno pritožila D. in D. P. (v nadaljevanju pritožnika). Uveljavljata ″vse dovoljene pritožbene razloge″. Predlagata spremembo z zavrženjem tožbenega zahtevka oziroma njegovo zavrnitvijo, podredno pa razveljavitev sodbe z vrnitvijo zadeve sodišču prve stopnje v ponovno odločanje. Priglašata pritožbene stroške.

3. Pritožba ni dovoljena.

4. V predmetni zadevi sta pritožnika vložila pritožbo in predlog za stransko intervencijo. Stranska intervencija pritožnikov ni bila dopuščena, ker nista izkazala pravnega interesa za sodelovanje v postopku. Sklep o tem je postal pravnomočen.

5. Pravni interes za pritožbo je procesna predpostavka, brez katere ni vsebinskega odločanja o pritožbi. Pomeni, da ima pravico do pritožbe samo tista stranka, ki bi ji, če bi se pokazalo, da je utemeljena, prinesla konkretno in neposredno pravno korist. Ker je pritožbeni interes predpostavka za dovoljenost pritožbe, mora obstajati tako ob njeni vložitvi kot v celotnem pritožbenem postopku in ob odločanju o pritožbi.

6. Pravovarstveni interes pritožnikov je s pravnomočnostjo odločitve o stranski intervenciji odpadel, saj tudi morebitna ugoditev pritožbi za njiju ne bi pomenila izboljšanja pravnega položaja. Zato je bilo potrebno njuno pritožbo zavreči (351. člen in 343. člen Zakona o pravdnem postopku - v nadaljevanju ZPP).

7. Pritožnika nista upravičena do povrnitve stroškov, ki so jima nastali v zvezi s tem pritožbenim postopkom, saj s pritožbo nista uspela (prvi odstavek 165. člena in prvi odstavek 154. člena ZPP).