Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSRS Sklep II DoR 115/2023 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2023:II.DOR.115.2023 AI generated

Supreme Court dismisses review application as first-instance judgment on ownership is final and binding.

Case Number VSRS Sklep II DoR 115/2023
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 defendant's application for permission to file a review against the second-instance judgment. The first instance court ruled that the plaintiff owns the disputed properties and awarded costs, which the second instance court confirmed. The Supreme Court found that the conditions for granting a review under the Code of Civil Procedure were not met because the lower court's decision on ownership was final.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Zakon o pravdnem postopku 367.a; 367.c: A review application is inadmissible when the lower court has already decided on the merits of the case and the decision is final and binding.

Keywords

AI generated
review application final judgment property ownership civil procedure supreme court admissibility binding force

Cited Legislation

AI generated
367.a paragraph 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure
367.c of the Code of Civil Procedure
324 paragraph 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure

Cited Case Law

AI generated
Constitutional Court of Slovenia, Decision of 4 April 1960
AI generated
Sklep II Ips 216/2010
Supreme Court dismisses adverse possession claim due to lack of possession and good faith, ruling title cannot be acquired without these elements.
VSK sodba I Cp 635/2014
Appeal dismissed; good faith possession and valid contract override land registry errors for property rights. Good faith possession and valid contract override land registry errors for property rights.
Sodba II Ips 351/2008
Supreme Court dismisses appeal; permanent usage right transformed into ownership under ZLNDL; bad faith found in defendants. (16 words)
VSRS Sklep I R 63/2022
Supreme Court rejects transfer of case due to lack of impartiality when court itself requests transfer.
Sodba II Ips 571/2009
Court dismisses claim for ownership transfer of a non-existent land parcel portion lacking real estate independence.

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. Tožnik zahteva ugotovitev, da je lastnik nepremičnin parc. 988/5 in 988/7, obe k. o. ... (v nadaljevanju sporni nepremičnini), katerih zemljiškoknjižni lastnik je toženec.

2. Sodišče prve stopnje je razsodilo, da sta sporni nepremičnini last tožnika. Tožbeni zahtevek, da mora toženec tožniku izstaviti zemljiškoknjižno dovolilo za sporni nepremičnini, je zavrnilo. Odločilo je, da mora toženec tožniku povrniti 520,25 EUR pravdnih stroškov z zakonskimi zamudnimi obrestmi.

3. Sodišče druge stopnje je pritožbo zavrnilo, potrdilo sodbo sodišča prve stopnje in odločilo, da pravdni stranki sami krijeta svoje stroške pritožbenega postopka.

4. Predlog za dopustitev revizije zoper odločitev sodišča druge stopnje vlaga toženec. Predlaga dopustitev revizije zaradi odločitve o pravnem vprašanju, ali je Obči državljanski zakonik v zvezi z načelnim pravnim mnenjem razširjene seje Zveznega Vrhovnega sodišča z dne 4. 4. 1960 dopuščal zadržanje teka priposestvovalne dobe za priposestvovanje nepremičnin v primeru nacionalizacije oziroma podržavljenja le-teh v letu 1946 (oziroma ali je v tem primeru dovoljeval zgolj pretrganje priposestvovanja in ponoven začetek teka priposestvovalne dobe)?

5. Predlog ni utemeljen.

6. Vrhovno sodišče je ugotovilo, da glede vprašanja v predlogu niso podani pogoji za dopustitev revizije iz prvega odstavka 367.a člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku (v nadaljevanju 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).