Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSRS Sklep X DoR 177/2022-4 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2023:X.DOR.177.2022.4 AI generated

Supreme Court dismissed appeal allowing administrative court to partially revoke agency decision and order costs.

Case Number VSRS Sklep X DoR 177/2022-4
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Administrative Court partially revoked an agency decision and ordered the agency to pay costs, prompting the agency to file a petition for leave to appeal. The Supreme Court noted that while the petitioner could also be the defendant, the petition lacked substantive grounds under the Code of Civil Procedure. Consequently, the Court rejected the petition because the conditions for granting leave to appeal were not met.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Zakon o upravnem sporu; Zakon o pravdnem postopku: In administrative proceedings governed by the Code of Administrative Disputes, the Code of Civil Procedure applies unless otherwise specified; a petition for leave to appeal is inadmissible if the conditions for granting such leave are not fulfilled.

Keywords

AI generated
administrative dispute leave to appeal code of civil procedure partial revocation costs order petition dismissal agency decision

Cited Legislation

AI generated
22. člen Zakona o upravnem sporu
367.a člen Zakona o pravdnem postopku
367.c člen Zakona o pravdnem postopku

Cited Case Law

AI generated
X Ips 16/2020
Supreme Court allows appeal by defendant in administrative litigation, reversing lower court for misapplication of law.
X Ips 31/2020
2020, X Ips 31/2020 z dne 30.
X Ips 34/2020
2020, X Ips 34/2020 z dne 30.
X Ips 23/2020
2020, X Ips 23/2020 z dne 28.
X Ips 17/2020
2020, X Ips 17/2020 z dne 11.
X Ips 78/2020
2020, X Ips 78/2020 z dne 20.
X Ips 25/2020
2021, X Ips 25/2020 z dne 10.
X Ips 38/2020
2021, X Ips 38/2020 z dne 10.
X Ips 46/2020
2021, X Ips 46/2020 z dne 10.
X Ips 62/2020
2021 in X Ips 62/2020 z dne 10.
AI generated
VSRS Sklep X DoR 114/2020-3
Supreme Court dismisses appeal request due to lack of legal interest and procedural standing under administrative law.
VSRS Sklep X DoR 116/2020-3
Appeal against administrative act dismissed when case remitted to issuing authority for retrial.
Sklep III DoR 48/2011
Supreme Court allows appeal regarding whether competition authority could decide without hearing and if time period was necessary.
UPRS Sodba I U 36/2018-17
Administrative court dismisses appeal against competition authority decision regarding market division agreements.
sklep II U 239/2013
Administrative Court dismissed case for lack of jurisdiction, transferring it to the Supreme Court per Competition Act provisions.

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 zavrne.

[JEDRO]

V sodni praksi Vrhovnega sodišča se je že uveljavilo stališče, da je v primerih, kakršen je konkretni, vlagatelj revizije lahko tudi tožena stranka.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Upravno sodišče je z izpodbijano sodbo tožbi ugodilo tako, da je odločbo Javne Agencije Republike Slovenije za varstvo konkurence (torej toženke) št. 3062-5/2017-123 z dne 30. 12. 2019 odpravilo v delu, ki se nanaša na tožnico, in v tem delu zadevo vrnilo istemu organu v ponovni postopek. Toženki je tudi naložilo, da tožnici povrne stroške postopka.

2. Zoper sodbo Upravnega sodišča vlaga toženka predlog za dopustitev revizije.

3. Po prvem odstavku 22. člena Zakona o upravnem sporu (v nadaljevanju ZUS-1) se v upravnem sporu, kolikor ta zakon ne določa drugače, uporabljajo določbe zakona, ki ureja pravdni postopek, torej določbe Zakona o pravdnem postopku (v nadaljevanju ZPP).

4. V sodni praksi Vrhovnega sodišča se je že uveljavilo stališče, da je v primerih, kakršen je konkretni, vlagatelj revizije lahko tudi tožena stranka. 1 Vrhovno sodišče je, ker ni našlo ovir formalne narave, ki jih ureja ZPP, predlog tožene stranke vsebinsko obravnavalo.

5. Ker niso izpolnjeni pogoji za dopustitev revizije iz 367.a člena ZPP, je Vrhovno sodišče na podlagi drugega odstavka 367.c člena ZPP predlog zavrnilo.

6. Sklep je bil sprejet soglasno (sedmi odstavek 324. člena ZPP).

1 Prim. sklepe Vrhovnega sodišča X Ips 16/2020 z dne 9. 9. 2020, X Ips 31/2020 z dne 30. 9. 2020, X Ips 34/2020 z dne 30. 9. 2020, X Ips 23/2020 z dne 28. 10. 2020, X Ips 17/2020 z dne 11. 11. 2020, X Ips 78/2020 z dne 20. 1. 2021, X Ips 25/2020 z dne 10. 2. 2021, X Ips 38/2020 z dne 10. 2. 2021, X Ips 46/2020 z dne 10. 2. 2021 in X Ips 62/2020 z dne 10. 2. 2021.