Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSRS Sklep II DoR 394/2020 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2021:II.DOR.394.2020 AI generated

Supreme Court dismisses review application as inadmissible due to failure to meet statutory review conditions under ZPP.

Case Number VSRS Sklep II DoR 394/2020
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 defendant's application for permission to file a review against the second-instance judgment. The defendant argued that the lower court failed to apply the proportionality test correctly and misallocated the burden of proof regarding the illicit origin of assets. The court determined that the application did not satisfy the specific conditions for admissibility required by the Code of Civil Procedure.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

367.a ZPP; 367.c ZPP: An application for permission to file a review is inadmissible if the applicant fails to demonstrate that the lower court's decision violates a provision of law or the Constitution in a manner that justifies a review.

Keywords

AI generated
permission for review illicit origin of assets proportionality test burden of proof Code of Civil Procedure

Cited Legislation

AI generated
367.a ZPP
367.c ZPP
324. ZPP

Cited Case Law

AI generated
U-I-6/15-23
sodbe sodišča prve stopnje? Ali je v povezavi z ustavno odločbo U-I-6/15-23 z dne 5.
AI generated
VSRS Sklep II DoR 109/2024
Supreme Court rejects review request regarding monetary compensation for illicit asset seizure under Slovenian law.
VSRS Sklep III DoR 60/2022
Supreme Court dismisses appeal admissibility request due to failure to meet statutory requirements under ZPP. The applicant failed to specify violated legal rules or demonstrate the importance of the legal questions. The court rejected the request because the applicant did not provide the necessary circumstances showing the importance of the legal questions, nor did they specify the violated legal rule, which are mandatory components of an appeal admissibility request under the Code of Civil Procedure. The court decided to reject the request because the applicant failed to meet the formal prerequisites for a decision on the appeal admissibility request, as they did not provide the necessary circumstances showing the importance of the legal questions, nor did they specify the violated legal rule, which are mandatory components of an appeal admissibility request under the Code of Civil Procedure. The court decided to reject the request because the applicant failed to meet the formal prerequisites for a decision on the appeal admissibility request, as they did not provide the necessary circumstances showing the importance of the legal questions, nor did they specify the violated legal rule, which are mandatory components of an appeal admissibility request under the Code of Civil Procedure.
VSL Sklep I Cp 1941/2020
Appeal allowed; Supreme Court quashes first-instance judgment for procedural violation regarding evidence assessment under ZPP. The court found the lower court's selective evaluation of evidence violated procedural rules, necessitating a retrial. The Supreme Court ruled that the first-instance court must independently re-evaluate all evidence without being bound by the negative findings of the appellate court, ensuring a fair retrial without reopening the entire main hearing unless absolutely necessary. The decision emphasizes that procedural violations requiring a new evidence assessment must be corrected by the lower court to avoid unnecessary delays and respect the principle of two-instance jurisdiction.
VSL Sklep II Cp 814/2107
Appeal dismissed; higher court cannot suspend proceedings or override first instance on constitutional grounds.
VSRS Sodba II Ips 5/2023
Supreme Court dismisses appeal on illegal origin of property, rejecting retroactive constitutionality claims regarding burden of proof.

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]

Predlog se zavrne.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Sodišče prve stopnje je v postopku po Zakonu o odvzemu premoženja nezakonitega izvora (ZOPNI) v relevantnem delu odločilo, da je v izreku navedeno premoženje tožencev nezakonitega izvora in se odvzame in s pravnomočnostjo sodbe postane last Republike Slovenije (II. in III. točka izreka).

2. Sodišče druge stopnje je pritožbo tožene stranke zavrnilo in potrdilo sodbo sodišča prve stopnje.

3. Zoper sodbo sodišča druge stopnje tožena stranka vlaga predlog za dopustitev revizije in izpostavlja vprašanja, ki bi naj bila pomembna, in sicer: Ali definicija očitnega sorazmerja v drugem odstavku 5. člena ZOPNI daje podlago za uporabo metode indirektnega ugotavljanja dohodkov neto vrednosti v skladu z 68.a členom Zakona o davčnem postopku (v nadaljevanju ZDavP-2)? Ali je v konkretni pravdi dana ustrezna vsebina pravnemu standardu očitnega nesorazmerja iz drugega odstavka 5. člena ZOPNI in je sodišče pravilno upoštevalo prevalitev dokaznega bremena na tožene stranke v zvezi z dokazovanjem izvora premoženja iz točke II. sodbe sodišča prve stopnje? Ali je v povezavi z ustavno odločbo U-I-6/15-23 z dne 5. 7. 2018 pravilna odločitev sodišča o ugotovljenem očitnem nesorazmerju iz 5. člena ZOPNI glede na to, da izsledki finančne preiskave upoštevajo premoženje preiskovancev tudi v obdobju od 1. 1. 2010 do 29. 11. 2011? Ali je podana bistvena kršitev določb pravdnega postopka s tem, ko je sodišče izvedenki zastavilo vprašanja, ki jih ni postavila tožena stranka kot edini predlagatelj dokaznega predloga za postavitev izvedenca? Ali je sodišče pravilno oprlo svojo odločitev na izvedensko mnenje, ki pa ni obravnavalo enako metodo kot je bila uporabljena v finančni preiskavi (metoda indirektnega ugotavljanja dohodkov neto vrednosti) temveč povsem drugo metodo, tj. metodo virov sredstev in uporabe finančnih sredstev oz. metodo računa T?

4. Predlog ni utemeljen.

5. Ker niso izpolnjeni pogoji za dopustitev revizije iz 367.a člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku (v nadaljevanju ZPP), je Vrhovno sodišče na podlagi drugega odstavka 367.c člena ZPP predlog tožene stranke zavrnilo.

6. Senat je odločitev sprejel soglasno (sedmi odstavek 324. člena ZPP).