Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSRS Sklep II DoR 108/2022 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2022:II.DOR.108.2022.1 AI generated

Supreme Court dismisses appeal permission request due to procedural time bar and lack of lawyer representation.

Case Number VSRS Sklep II DoR 108/2022
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's request for permission to appeal, ruling it procedurally inadmissible. The applicant failed to pay the court fee initially, leading the court to deem the first request withdrawn, and subsequently filed a new request well beyond the 30-day statutory deadline. Furthermore, the applicant did not engage a qualified lawyer, violating the mandatory representation requirement for extraordinary legal remedies.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

ZPP 367.b odst. 1; ZPP 86. odst. 3, 4: A request for permission to appeal must be filed within 30 days of service and requires representation by a licensed lawyer unless the party holds a legal qualification.

Keywords

AI generated
permission to appeal statutory time limit court fee payment lawyer representation extraordinary remedy procedural inadmissibility withdrawal of request

Cited Legislation

AI generated
367.b odst. 1 ZPP
86. odst. 3 ZPP
86. odst. 4 ZPP
AI generated
VSK Sklep CDn 252/2019
Court allows land registration appeal where tax exemption applies to marital property division transfers.
VSRS Sklep Cp 17/2021
Supreme Court dismisses appeal against rejection of restitutio in integrandi request due to procedural time limits.
VSRS Sklep DoR SRG 1/2026
Supreme Court dismisses lay review application due to applicant's failure to prove bar exam qualification.
VSL sklep II Cp 1823/2001
Appeal dismissed; claim for retrial barred by five-year objective deadline despite late discovery of perjury grounds.
VSL sklep I Cp 1953/2009
Appeal dismissed; restoration of proceedings for possession disturbance requires narrower grounds and shorter time limits than general appeals.

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 se zavrže.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Tožeča stranka (tožnica) je v isti zadevi že vložila predlog za dopustitev revizije. Ob vložitvi prvotnega predloga za dopustitev revizije ni plačala sodne takse, ki mora biti plačana po predpisih o sodnih taksah. Zato je Vrhovno sodišče s sklepom z dne 6. 7. 2022 sklenilo, da se šteje predlog za umaknjen. Sedaj tožnica ponovno vlaga predlog za dopustitev revizije.

2. Predlog je prepozen.

3. Prelog za dopustitev revizije mora stranka podati v 30 dneh po vročitvi pravnomočne sodbe sodišča druge stopnje (prvi odstavek 367.b člena Zakon o pravdnem postopku; ZPP).

4. Tožnici je bila sodba sodišča druge stopnje osebno vročena 1. 2. 2022. Zadnji dan 30 dnevnega roka je bil 3. 3. 2022. Tožnica je predlog za dopustitev revizije vložila 1 šele po izteku roka, in sicer 6. 9. 2022.

1 V postopku z izrednimi pravnimi sredstvi lahko stranka opravlja pravdna dejanja samo po pooblaščencu, ki je odvetnik (tretji odstavek 86. člena ZPP). Izjema velja le v primeru, če ima stranka ali njen zakoniti zastopnik opravljen pravniški državni izpit (četrti odstavek 86. člena ZPP). Teh pogojev tožnica prav tako ni izkazala.