Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSRS Sklep II DoR 178/2023 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2023:II.DOR.178.2023 AI generated

Supreme Court dismisses review application regarding land registry entry errors under Slovenian Civil Procedure Code.

Case Number VSRS Sklep II DoR 178/2023
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 applicant's request to permit a review of the final judgment on joint property. The applicant argued that a land registry entry was erroneous due to negligence rather than fraud, seeking to overturn a prior decision denying the restoration of proceedings. The court held that the statutory conditions for admitting a review application were not met, specifically regarding the nature of the underlying error.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

367.a odst. 1 ZPP; 367.c ZPP: A review application is inadmissible if the applicant fails to demonstrate that the lower court's decision involved a violation of law or a significant error in fact-finding that justifies reopening the case, particularly when the alleged error stems from negligence rather than intentional forgery.

Keywords

AI generated
restoration of proceedings land registry entry review application admissibility negligence vs fraud Slovenian Civil Procedure Code

Cited Legislation

AI generated
367.a odst. 1 ZPP
367.c ZPP
324. odst. 7 ZPP
394. člen ZPP
AI generated
VSL sklep I Cp 933/99
Appeal dismissed because request for reopening proceedings was filed after both subjective and objective time limits expired. The court ruled the request was untimely and therefore inadmissible. The appeal was rejected as the lower court correctly applied the statute of limitations. The request for reopening was time-barred and thus inadmissible. The appeal was dismissed due to the expiration of statutory time limits. The court upheld the lower court's decision on timeliness. The request for reopening was rejected as untimely. The appeal was dismissed because the request was time-barred. The court confirmed the lower court's rejection of the untimely request.
Sodba II Ips 471/2001
Supreme Court allows divorce of property agreement where parties agreed on unilateral termination upon default.
VSL Sklep II Cp 468/2023
Appeal allowed; lower court's referral to another party dismissed due to lack of reasoning violating due process.
Sklep II Ips 335/98
Appeal dismissed because renewal request lacked new facts or evidence under Civil Procedure Code.
VSL Sklep I Cp 82/2023
Appeal dismissed; final binding decision on land ownership does not bind non-appearing owners if administrator was notified.

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. Med pravdnima strankama je potekal spor glede skupnega premoženja. Sodišče prve stopnje je izdalo sodbo, ki je postala pravnomočna. Toženec je vložil predlog za obnovo postopka, ker bi naj sodba temeljila na zemljiškoknjižnem izpisku, ki izkazuje nezakoniti vpis (pravice prepovedi odtujitve in obremenitve). Navaja, da je prišlo do napake pri vpisu, kar mu je zemljiškoknjižno sodišče samo potrdilo.

2. Sodišče prve stopnje je predlog za obnovo postopka zavrnilo.

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

4. Predlog za dopustitev revizije zoper odločitev sodišča druge stopnje vlaga toženec. Predlaga dopustitev revizije zaradi odločitve o pravnih vprašanjih: 1) Ali je edini pogoj za uporabo obnovitvenega razloga iz 6. točke 394. člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku (v nadaljevanju ZPP) kot predhodno vprašanje nujno izključno ugotavljanje obstoja kaznivega dejanja ponarejanja listin, ki je naklepno kaznivo dejanje? 2) Ali je v primeru, da do vpisa neresnične vsebine v zemljiško knjigo ni prišlo naklepno, ampak iz malomarnosti, saj se je sporna izvedena pravica, pri drugi parceli predlagatelja, s parc. št. 388/4 k. o. ..., utemeljeno nahajala, predviden kakšen drug razlog za obnovo postopka in kakšen? 3) Ali je v obravnavanem primeru sodbo, ki temelji na nespornem dejstvu pomotnega oziroma malomarnostnega vpisa določene pravice v zemljiško knjigo, ki je potrjena z dopisom Okrajnega sodišča v Slovenj Gradcu, sploh mogoče izpodbijati z obnovo postopka?

5. Predlog ni utemeljen.

6. Vrhovno sodišče je ugotovilo, da glede vprašanj v predlogu niso podani pogoji za dopustitev revizije iz prvega odstavka 367.a člena ZPP. Zato je predlog za dopustitev revizije zavrnilo (367.c člen ZPP).

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