Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSRS Sklep II DoR 49/2022 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2022:II.DOR.49.2022 AI generated

Supreme Court dismisses appeal request due to lack of legal representation by a licensed lawyer.

Case Number VSRS Sklep II DoR 49/2022
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 rejected the applicant's request to permit an appeal against a final judgment. The debtor filed a layman's protest, which the court treated as an appeal request, but failed to demonstrate the required legal standing. The court ruled that under the Code of Civil Procedure, parties in extraordinary legal proceedings must act through a licensed lawyer, an exception the debtor did not prove. Consequently, the request was inadmissible due to the lack of postulational capacity.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Zakon o pravdnem postopku 86. odst. 3; 86. odst. 4: Parties in extraordinary legal proceedings may act only through a licensed lawyer, unless they prove having passed the state bar exam; failure to meet this requirement renders an appeal request inadmissible for lack of postulational capacity.

Keywords

AI generated
postulational capacity licensed lawyer requirement extraordinary legal proceedings layman's protest Code of Civil Procedure admissibility of appeal state bar exam

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Zakon o pravdnem postopku 86. odst. 3
Zakon o pravdnem postopku 86. odst. 4
Zakon o pravdnem postopku 377. člen
Zakon o pravdnem postopku 367. člen
Zakon o pravdnem postopku 91. odst. 1
Zakon o izvršbi in zavarovanju 15. člen
AI generated
VSRS Sklep II DoR 404/2023
Supreme Court dismisses appeal for leave to appeal due to lack of lawyer qualification and procedural error.
VSRS Sklep II DoR 161/2022
Supreme Court dismisses review permission request due to applicant's lack of legal standing and qualification.
Sklep X Ips 494/2012
Supreme Court dismisses appeal for failure to prove specific legal issues or severe consequences under administrative review rules.
VSRS Sklep II DoR 94/2025
Supreme Court dismisses appeal request due to non-payment of court fees under ZPP Article 105a(3).
Sklep X Ips 132/2008
Supreme Court dismisses appeal for lack of proof of severe consequences under ZUS-1 Article 83(2).

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]

Predlog za dopustitev revizije je zaradi pomanjkanja postulacijske sposobnosti nedovoljen.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Dolžnik je zoper pravnomočni sklep sodišča druge stopnje vložil laično pritožbo, ki jo je Vrhovno sodišče obravnavalo kot predlog za dopustitev revizije.

2. Predlog ni dovoljen.

3. Zakon o pravdnem postopku (v nadaljevanju ZPP) v tretjem odstavku 86. člena v zvezi s 15. členom Zakona o izvršbi in zavarovanju (v nadaljevanju ZIZ) določa, da lahko stranka v postopku z izrednimi pravnimi sredstvi opravlja pravdna dejanja samo po pooblaščencu, ki je odvetnik. Izjemoma lahko stranka nastopa tudi sama, če izkaže, da ima opravljen pravniški državni izpit (četrti odstavek 86. člena ZPP), česar dolžnik ni izkazal.

4. Predlog za dopustitev revizije je torej zaradi pomanjkanja postulacijske sposobnosti nedovoljen, zato ga je Vrhovno sodišče v skladu s 377. členom v zvezi s 367.č členom in prvim odstavkom 91. člena ZPP ter 15. členom ZIZ zavrglo.

5. Senat v sestavi, navedeni v uvodu sklepa, je odločitev sprejel soglasno (sedmi odstavek 324. člena ZPP v zvezi s 15. členom ZIZ).