Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSRS Sklep II DoR 82/2023 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2023:II.DOR.82.2023 AI generated

Supreme Court allows review to determine if creating a public benefit easement on private land bypasses expropriation laws.

Case Number VSRS Sklep II DoR 82/2023
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Partially Allowed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court of Slovenia granted permission for a review of a lower court's dismissal of a claim declaring a public benefit easement void. The plaintiff, a landowner, argued that establishing an unlimited easement on private property to accommodate a public road bypasses constitutional and statutory expropriation requirements. The court found the review admissible because the core question concerns whether such an easement constitutes a legal workaround for mandatory expropriation procedures.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

367.a(1) ZPP; 367.c(3) ZPP: A review is admissible when the lower court's decision fails to address a fundamental constitutional or statutory issue regarding whether creating a public benefit easement on private land constitutes an impermissible circumvention of expropriation laws.

Keywords

AI generated
public benefit easement private property ownership expropriation law bypass constitutional review admissibility public road infrastructure land registry entry ZPP review procedure

Cited Legislation

AI generated
367.a(1) ZPP
367.c(3) ZPP
AI generated
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.
VSL Sodba II Cp 2619/2017
Appeal dismissed; good faith acquisition of servitude blocks reliance on Article 190 ZPP for real rights protection.
VSRS Sklep I R 49/2023
Supreme Court rules that contractual claims for easement termination fall under general territorial jurisdiction, not exclusive real estate jurisdiction.
VSRS Sklep II Ips 73/2023
Supreme Court dismisses appeal on easement validity, ruling voluntary public easement is not unconstitutional expropriation.
VSRS Sklep II DoR 3/2025
Supreme Court denies leave for appeal regarding procedural error interpretation and land registry title issuance requirements.

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

Revizija se dopusti glede vprašanja ali se lahko protiustavno in nezakonito stanje „kategorizacije javne ceste na zemljišču v zasebni lasti“ trajno ali začasno uredi z ustanovitvijo časovno neomejene brezplačne stvarne služnosti v javno korist? Ali takšna ureditev služnosti v javno korist predstavlja obid določb o razlastitvi?

[JEDRO]

Revizija se dopusti glede vprašanja ali se lahko protiustavno in nezakonito stanje "kategorizacije javne ceste na zemljišču v zasebni lasti" trajno ali začasno uredi z ustanovitvijo časovno neomejene brezplačne stvarne služnosti v javno korist? Ali takšna ureditev služnosti v javno korist predstavlja obid določb o razlastitvi?

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Tožnik je dejanski in zemljiškoknjižni lastnik nepremičnine, parc. št. 718, k. o. ... (v nadaljevanju nepremičnina), ki jo je 11. 9. 2018 kupil od druge toženke. Pri nepremičnini je v korist prve toženke vknjižena služnostna pravica rekonstrukcije, vzdrževanja in upravljanja javne infrastrukture – javna cesta, na podlagi med toženkama sklenjene pogodbe o ustanovitvi neprave stvarne služnosti v javno korist. Tožnik se zavzema za ničnost služnostne pogodbe, saj naj bi jo toženki sklenili v nasprotju z določili Ustave RS ter veljavno zakonodajo. Bistveno vprašanje je, ali ustanovitev služnosti v javno korist ustreza dejanski obremenitvi lastninske pravice, ko prek zasebnega zemljišča poteka javna cesta, ali pa gre, nasprotno, za takšen poseg, ki terja (popolno) razlastitev.

2. Sodišče prve stopnje je zavrnilo tožbeni zahtevek tožnika za ugotovitev ničnosti Pogodbe o ustanovitvi neprave stvarne služnosti v javno korist, št. 35019-4/2018-4, sklenjeno 14. 5. 2018 med prvo in drugo toženko, ter neveljavnost vknjižbe te pravice v zemljiško knjigo z vzpostavitvijo prejšnjega zemljiškoknjižnega stanja z izbrisom izvedene pravice pod ID ..., vknjiženi pri parceli 0000 718, v korist Občine ...

3. Sodišče druge stopnje je zavrnilo tožnikovo pritožbo in potrdilo sodbo sodišča prve stopnje.

4. Zoper takšen sklep vlaga tožnik predlog za dopustitev revizije. V njem predlaga, da se revizija dopusti glede naslednjih vprašanj:

- Ali se lahko protiustavno in nezakonito stanje „kategorizacije javne ceste na zemljišču v zasebni lasti“ trajno ali začasno uredi z ustanovitvijo časovno neomejene brezplačne stvarne služnosti v javno korist? Ali takšna ureditev služnosti v javno korist predstavlja obid določb o razlastitvi?

- Ali je ustanovitev stvarne služnosti v javno korist na zemljišču v zasebni lasti, prek katerega poteka kategorizirana javna pot, v skladu z določbo 49. člena Zakona o cestah (ZCes-2) oziroma 39. člena prej veljavnega Zakona o cestah (ZCes-1), po katerih so javne ceste državne ceste v lasti Republike Slovenije in občinske ceste v lasti občin?

5. Predlog je delno utemeljen.

6. Vrhovno sodišče je presodilo, da je glede v izreku navedenega vprašanja izpolnjen pogoj za dopustitev revizije iz prvega odstavka 367.a člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku (v nadaljevanju ZPP), zato je revizijo na podlagi tretjega odstavka 367.c člena ZPP dopustilo.

7. Vrhovno sodišče je odločalo v senatu, navedenem v uvodu sklepa. Odločitev je sprejelo soglasno (sedmi odstavek 324. člena ZPP).