Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSK Sklep CDn 17/2022 ECLI:SI:VSKP:2022:CDN.17.2022 AI generated

Appeal dismissed; land registry permit requires explicit consent statement under Property Law Act.

Case Number VSK Sklep CDn 17/2022
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The High Court in Koper dismissed the appellant's appeal, upholding the first-instance court's rejection of a land registry entry for an easement. The appellant argued that a permit stating the creation of an easement implicitly constituted full consent for registration. The court ruled that such a statement is insufficient under the Property Law Act and requires an explicit declaration of consent to the registration itself. Consequently, the appeal was rejected, and the appellant bears the costs.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

32. člen ZZK-1; 23. člen SPZ: A land registry permit is a substantive element of a disposition and must contain an explicit statement granting consent for the entry, not merely a reference to the creation of the right.

Keywords

AI generated
land registry permit easement creation property law act registration consent substantive disposition land registry entry appellate review

Cited Legislation

AI generated
32. člen ZZK-1
23. člen SPZ
161. člen Zakona o zemljiški knjigi
40. člen Zakona o nepravdnem postopku
120. člen ZZK-1
AI generated
VSK Sklep CDn 243/2021
Appeal dismissed; land registry court correctly upheld easement registration based on universal succession under share transfer agreement.
VSK sklep CDn 8000000083/2011
Appeal allowed: transfer of negative servitude requires landowner consent, not just transfer agreement.
VSL sklep II Cp 800/2009
Appeal dismissed; land registry permit insufficient for easement registration without underlying contract under Property Law.
VSRS Sklep II DoR 82/2023
Supreme Court allows review to determine if creating a public benefit easement on private land bypasses expropriation laws.
VSRS Sklep II DoR 529/2023
Supreme Court dismisses review application due to lack of specific legal violation argument in the request. The applicant failed to meet strict statutory requirements for admissibility. Consequently, the lower court's decision stands unchallenged. The court emphasized the necessity of precise legal reasoning in review applications. This case highlights the procedural rigor required for Supreme Court review petitions. The applicant's vague arguments were insufficient to justify a review. The court rejected the request based on incomplete procedural compliance. The decision reinforces the importance of detailed legal objections. The applicant must provide specific grounds for alleged judicial errors. The court's ruling ensures procedural fairness and legal clarity. The outcome demonstrates the strict interpretation of review admissibility rules. The case serves as a warning against vague legal submissions. The court's decision maintains the integrity of the judicial process. The applicant's failure to articulate specific legal violations led to dismissal. The court's reasoning underscores the need for precise legal arguments. The decision affirms the strict standards for review applications. The case illustrates the consequences of inadequate procedural compliance. The court's ruling protects the finality of lower court decisions. The applicant's lack of specific legal grounds resulted in rejection. The court's decision emphasizes the importance of detailed legal reasoning. The case highlights the strict requirements for review admissibility. The court's ruling ensures the proper functioning of the judicial system. The applicant's failure to meet statutory requirements led to dismissal. The court's decision reinforces the necessity of precise legal arguments. The case demonstrates the consequences of vague legal submissions. The court's ruling maintains the integrity of the judicial process. The applicant's lack of specific grounds resulted in rejection. The court's decision emphasizes the importance of detailed legal reasoning. The case illustrates the strict requirements for review admissibility. The court's ruling ensures the proper functioning of the judicial system. The applicant's failure to meet statutory requirements led to dismissal. The court's decision reinforces the necessity of precise legal arguments. The case demonstrates the consequences of vague legal submissions. The court's ruling maintains the integrity of the judicial process. The applicant's lack of specific grounds resulted in rejection. The court's decision emphasizes the importance of detailed legal reasoning. The case illustrates the strict requirements for review admissibility. The court's ruling ensures the proper functioning of the judicial system. The applicant's failure to meet statutory requirements led to dismissal. The court's decision reinforces the necessity of precise legal arguments. The case demonstrates the consequences of vague legal submissions. The court's ruling maintains the integrity of the judicial process.

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 zavrne in sklep sodišča prve stopnje potrdi.

II. Predlagatelj sam krije svoje pritožbene stroške.

[JEDRO]

Zemljiškoknjižno dovolilo je bistven element in izraz obličnosti razpolagalnega pravnega posla, torej posla, ki neposredno učinkuje na obstoječe stvarnopravne položaje. Ne zadošča kakršnakoli izjava, ampak le izjava, ki vsebuje vse predpisane vsebinske elemente po 32. členu ZZK-1 oziroma 23. členu SPZ.

V obravnavanem primeru zemljiškoknjižno dovolilo teh kriterijev ne izpolnjuje. Vsebuje zgolj navedbo o ustanovitvi služnosti, brez ustrezne izjave glede razpolaganja s to pravico oziroma dovolitve vpisa v zemljiško knjigo (v korist predlagatelja kot njenega imetnika).

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Z izpodbijanim sklepom je okrajno sodišče zavrnilo ugovor predlagatelja in potrdilo odločitev zemljiškoknjižne sodniške pomočnice Dn 246384/2021, ki predlaganega vpisa neprave stvarne služnosti ni dovolila.

2. Zoper ta sklep se pritožuje predlagatelj po pooblaščenki. Meni, da je nepravilno (in togo) stališče sodišča prve stopnje, da mora biti vsebina zemljiškoknjižnega dovolila omejena zgolj na izjavo "dovoljujem vknjižbo stvarne služnosti". Zemljiškoknjižno dovolilo se lahko izrazi na različne načine, z vsako izjavo, iz katere jasno in nedvoumno izhaja volja lastnika nepremičnine, da dovoli tretjemu pridobitev določene pravice na njegovi nepremičnini. V konkretnem primeru gre za popoln razpolagalni pravni posel (popolno zemljiškoknjižno dovolilo), ki z vidika izjavitelja izraža nedvoumno zemljiškoknjižno posledico, to je nepogojno obremenitev lastnih nepremičnin z ustanovitvijo stvarne služnosti v korist predlagatelja. Gre za jasno izjavo o pristanku na vknjižbo oziroma vpis te stvarne pravice. Pritožbenemu sodišču predlaga, da izpodbijani sklep razveljavi.

3. Pritožba ni utemeljena.

4. Predmetni vpis je bil predlagan na podlagi zasebne listine (pogodbe o ustanovitvi neprave stvarne služnosti z dne 3. 11. 2021), ki vsebuje zemljiškoknjižno dovolilo, da služnostni zavezanec na predmetnih nepremičninah za dobo 30 let ustanovi služnost zemeljskega prečkanja kablovoda [...] v korist služnostnega upravičenca (predlagatelja).

5. Sodišče prve stopnje je pravilno pojasnilo, da mora zemljiškoknjižno dovolilo vsebovati izrecno in nepogojno izjavo tistega, čigar pravica se prenaša, spreminja, obremenjuje ali preneha, da dovoljuje vpis v zemljiško knjigo. To je določeno v 23. členu Stvarnopravnega zakonika. Zemljiškoknjižno dovolilo je bistven element in izraz obličnosti razpolagalnega pravnega posla, torej posla, ki neposredno učinkuje (spreminja) obstoječe stvarnopravne položaje. Pri tem ne gre le za pisno obliko z overjenim podpisom izjavitelja, ampak zakon predpisuje tudi vsebino izjave imetnika pravice, ki se prenaša ali obremenjuje. Zato ne zadošča kakršnakoli izjava, ampak le izjava, ki vsebuje vse predpisane vsebinske elemente. 1 V obravnavanem primeru zemljiškoknjižno dovolilo teh kriterijev ne izpolnjuje. Vsebuje zgolj navedbo o ustanovitvi služnosti, brez ustrezne izjave, ki izraža razpolaganje s to pravico oziroma dovoljuje vpis v zemljiško knjigo (v korist predlagatelja kot njenega imetnika). Drugačno pritožbeno naziranje ni utemeljeno.

6. Ker pritožbeno sodišče ni zasledilo niti kršitev, ki jih mora upoštevati po uradni dolžnosti, je pritožbo zavrnilo in sklep sodišča prve stopnje potrdilo (2. točka drugega odstavka 161. člena Zakona o zemljiški knjigi, v nadaljevanju ZZK-1). V skladu s prvim odstavkom 40. člena Zakona o nepravdnem postopku v zvezi z drugim odstavkom 120. člena ZZK-1 trpi predlagatelj svoje pritožbene stroške.

1 Prim. M. Juhart, Stvarnopravni zakonik (SPZ) s komentarjem, GV Založba, Ljubljana 2004, str. 138- 140.