Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSRS Sklep II DoR 244/2021 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2021:II.DOR.244.2021 AI generated

Supreme Court dismisses appeal request against eviction order due to lack of statutory conditions for review.

Case Number VSRS Sklep II DoR 244/2021
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 defendant's request for permission to appeal the first-instance court's eviction order. The defendant argued she acquired ownership of the cellar via prescription after 40 years of possession and claimed violations of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Constitution. The court rejected the request because the statutory conditions for granting permission to appeal under Article 367.a of the Code of Civil Procedure were not met.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 367.a of the Code of Civil Procedure; Article 367.c of the Code of Civil Procedure: A request for permission to appeal is inadmissible if the statutory conditions for granting such permission are not fulfilled.

Keywords

AI generated
permission to appeal Code of Civil Procedure eviction order prescription of ownership supreme court review

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 367.a of the Code of Civil Procedure
Article 367.c of the Code of Civil Procedure
Article 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure
Article 22 of the Constitution
Article 33 of the Constitution
Article 14, paragraph 2, point 339 of the Code of Civil Procedure
AI generated
Sklep II Ips 480/98
Supreme Court dismisses appeal in tenancy dispute where property value falls below statutory threshold for review. Appeal rejected as inadmissible due to low value. Court rules appeal inadmissible because property value under 80,000 SIT. Appeal dismissed as inadmissible due to low property value threshold. Appeal rejected because property value did not exceed 80,000 SIT. Appeal dismissed as inadmissible due to property value below 80,000 SIT. Appeal rejected because property value was under 80,000 SIT. Appeal dismissed as inadmissible due to property value below 80,000 SIT.
Sodba II Ips 48/2001
Supreme Court dismisses appeal in eviction case, ruling tenant entitled to equivalent housing and purchase under Housing Act.
Sodba II Ips 490/92
Supreme Court dismisses appeal; tenant lacks housing right status after moving to nursing home.
Sklep II Ips 566/2001
Appeal against a judgment returning a case for retrial is inadmissible as the process is not final.
Sodba II Ips 431/93
Tenant's right to previous apartment preserved after move to better unit; eviction claim dismissed.

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 toženki naložilo, da mora izprazniti individualni prostor – klet št. 26, ki pripada enosobnemu stanovanju z ID znakom 0001 na naslovu ..., se iz nje izseliti in jo prazno vseh oseb in stvari izročiti tožniku.

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

3. Toženka v predlogu za dopustitev revizije trdi, da ima sporno klet (št. 26) v posesti od nakupa stanovanja dalje leta 1978, torej več kot 40 let, in da je lastninsko pravico na njej pridobila na podlagi priposestvovanja. Navaja še, da je sporna klet postala označena kot del stanovanja ID 0001 šele ob izdelavi novega etažnega načrta iz leta 2009. Zatrjuje tudi kršitve 8. člena in 14. točke drugega odstavka 339. člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku (v nadaljevanju ZPP) ter 22. in 33. člena Ustave. Predlaga dopustitev revizije glede vprašanj, (1) ali etažni elaborat, izdelan za potrebe vzpostavitve etažne lastnine, lahko predstavlja pravno podlago za pridobitev lastninske pravice na nepremičnini (posameznem delu stavbe); in (2) ali je v primeru dobroverne posesti na nepremičnini v času veljavnosti Zakona o temeljnih lastninskopravnih razmerjih (ZTLR), pri čemer v času 20-letne priposestvovalne dobe (od leta 1978 do 1998) nihče ni tako ali drugače posesti oporekal ali preprečeval, lahko pravilna odločitev sodišča, da toženka na predmetni nepremičnini lastninske pravice (s priposestvovanjem) ni pridobila.

4. Predlog ni utemeljen.

5. Pogoji za dopustitev revizije iz prvega odstavka 367.a člena ZPP niso podani, zato je Vrhovno sodišče toženkin predlog zavrnilo (drugi odstavek 367.c člena ZPP).

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