Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSL Sklep I Cp 1416/2021 ECLI:SI:VSLJ:2021:I.CP.1416.2021 AI generated

Appeal dismissed because plaintiff lacks legal interest as she owns no parcel in the boundary dispute.

Case Number VSL Sklep I Cp 1416/2021
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The court of first instance rejected the application for participation in the boundary adjustment proceeding due to the applicant's lack of legal interest. The appellant, B. B., challenged this decision arguing that her property, parcel 000/32, borders the disputed area, even though the specific boundary being adjusted lies between parcels owned by others. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, ruling that since the appellant does not own any of the parcels involved in the boundary determination, the proceedings cannot directly affect her rights.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Zakon o pravdnem postopku 2. tč. 365. člen: An appeal in a boundary adjustment proceeding is inadmissible if the appellant does not own any of the parcels involved, as the decision cannot directly affect their rights.

Keywords

AI generated
legal interest requirement boundary adjustment proceeding lack of ownership inadmissible appeal participation in proceedings

Cited Legislation

AI generated
2. tč. 365. člen Zakona o pravdnem postopku
AI generated
VSRS Sklep I Up 229/2016
Appeal dismissed as late; service on temporary agent validly started 15-day deadline.
VSL sklep I Cp 944/95
Appeal allowed; boundary dispute court reversed first instance for incorrect valuation threshold application.
VSL sklep II Cp 2387/2012
Appeal partially allowed; boundary order dismissed for incomplete party listing but upheld for sole owner claim.
VSL Sklep I Cpg 359/2021
Appeal court allows third-party intervention for a building rights holder in a property dispute case.
VSK sklep I Cp 1495/2005
Appeal dismissed; final cadastral boundary does not bar court boundary determination by stronger right.

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

Pritožba se zavrne in se sklep sodišča prve stopnje potrdi.

[JEDRO]

Nobena od navedenih parcel ni v lasti pritožnice, zato z odločitvijo v tem nepravdnem postopku njene pravice ne morejo biti neposredno prizadete.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Sodišče prve stopnje je sklenilo, da se prijava udeležbe A. A. in B. B. v tem postopku ureditve meje zaradi neizkazanega pravnega interesa zavrne.

2. Zoper sklep je vložila pritožbo B. B., ki je navedla, da se ne strinja s 3. in 4. točko obrazložitve. Tam je navedeno, da ne izkazuje pravnega interesa za ureditev meje med parcelami št. 000/6 ter 000/1 in 000/5, vse k. o. X. Sama je lastnica parc. 000/32, ki meji na parc. 000/11 v lasti A. A. in na pot, za katero se ne ve, čigava je, gre pa se za vprašanje meje poti za javno dobro v lasti občine parc. št. 000/6.

3. Pritožba ni utemeljena.

4. Kot navaja pritožnica sama, se v predmetnem postopku ureja meja med parc. št. 000/6 ter 000/1 in 000/5, vse k. o. X, nobena od navedenih parcel pa ni v lasti pritožnice, torej z odločitvijo v tem nepravdnem postopku njene pravice ne morejo biti neposredno prizadete, saj se meje določajo izključno med navedenimi parcelami. Navaja sicer, naj bi njena parcela mejila tudi z javno potjo, ki je v lasti občine, parc. št. 000/6, vendar pa gre v tem postopku izključno za urejanje meje med sledjo parcelo in parc. 000/1 in 000/5, vse k. o. X, ki pa so v lasti nasprotnega udeleženca, in ne nje.

5. Pritožba zato ni utemeljena in jo je pritožbeno sodišče na podlagi 2. tč. 365. čl. Zakona o pravdnem postopku pritožbo zavrnilo.