Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSL Sklep II Cp 1447/2022 ECLI:SI:VSLJ:2022:II.CP.1447.2022 AI generated

Appeal dismissed because no separate appeal exists for rulings permitting third-party intervention under ZPP. The court rejected the appeal as procedurally inadmissible. The court ruled that intervention rulings cannot be appealed separately.

Case Number VSL Sklep II Cp 1447/2022
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Court of Appeal dismissed the second defendant's appeal against the first instance court's ruling permitting a third-party intervention. The appellant argued the third party lacked legal interest, but the court found the appeal procedurally inadmissible. The court held that under the Code of Civil Procedure, no separate appeal exists for rulings allowing intervention, which can only be challenged in the final appeal.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

ZPP 3. odst. 200. člen; ZPP 1. odst. 363. člen, 1. točka 365. člen: Ruling permitting third-party intervention is not subject to a separate appeal and may only be challenged in the appeal against the final decision.

Keywords

AI generated
third party intervention separate appeal procedural inadmissibility Code of Civil Procedure final decision appeal

Cited Legislation

AI generated
ZPP 3. odst. 200. člen
ZPP 1. odst. 363. člen
ZPP 1. točka 365. člen
AI generated
VSC Sklep III Cpg 7/2021
Appeal dismissed; side intervention allowed while original plaintiff remains in court register despite business share transfer.
VSM Sklep I Cp 516/2022
Appeal dismissed; social partners cannot sue for director removal, and lawyer lacks standing to appeal intervention denial.
VSC Sklep I Cp 55/2021
Appeal dismissed; third party lacks legal interest in civil proceedings due to separate liability bases.
VDSS sklep Pdp 350/2015
Appeal court allows intervention by a co-defendant in a work injury liability dispute despite prior jurisdictional ruling.
VSL Sklep I Cp 715/2019
Appeal allowed: Single shareholder succeeds to dissolved company's rights after short procedure under ZPP s. 208.1.

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 zavrže.

[JEDRO]

ZPP v tretjem odstavku 200. člena določa, da zoper odločbo, s katero sodišče dopusti intervencijo, ni posebne pritožbe. To pomeni, da se sme sklep sodišča prve stopnje izpodbijati samo v pritožbi zoper končno odločbo.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Z izpodbijanim sklepom je sodišče prve stopnje v točki I izreka predlog za vstop družbe A. d.o.o. v postopek namesto tožeče stranke zavrnilo. V točki II izreka je dopustilo udeležbo stranskega intervenienta A. d.o.o na strani tožeče stranke.

2. Zoper točko II izreka o dopustitvi stranske intervencije se je pritožila druga tožena stranka. V pritožbi meni, da družba A. ni izkazala pravnega interesa za vstop v pravdo.

3. Pritožba ni dovoljena.

4. Zakon o pravdnem postopku (ZPP 1 ) v 3. odstavku 200. člena določa, da zoper odločbo, s katero sodišče dopusti intervencijo, ni posebne pritožbe. To pomeni, da se sme sklep sodišča prve stopnje izpodbijati samo v pritožbi zoper končno odločbo (3. odst. 363. člen ZPP). Glede na navedeno je pritožbeno sodišče pritožbo druge tožene stranke kot nedovoljeno zavrglo (1. odst. 363. člena in 1. točka 365. člena ZPP). Izpodbijani sklep bo druga tožena stranka lahko izpodbijala v pritožbi zoper končno odločbo. Ob tem pritožbeno sodišče še pripominja, da napačen pravni pouk strankam ne more dati pravic, ki jim po zakonu ne pripadajo.

1 Ur. l. RS, št. 26/1999 s spremembami in dopolnitvami.