Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSRS Sklep II DoR 109/2023 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2023:II.DOR.109.2023 AI generated

Supreme Court dismisses revision request regarding joint custody and contact arrangements for a minor child.

Case Number VSRS Sklep II DoR 109/2023
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 opposing party's request to permit a revision of the lower court's decision. The first-instance court established joint custody but limited the father's contact rights, which the appellate court partially corrected regarding the execution of contact. The Supreme Court denied the revision because the applicant failed to demonstrate that the lower court's decision violated fundamental rights or required a significant change in the legal situation.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Zakon o pravdnem postopku, 367.a odst. 1; 367.c odst. 2: A revision request is admissible only if it addresses a legal issue of significant importance for legal certainty, uniform application of law, or the development of law, and the lower court's decision is not merely a matter of factual assessment or minor legal error.

Keywords

AI generated
revision request admissibility joint custody arrangement contact with minor child legal certainty standard Supreme Court review

Cited Legislation

AI generated
367.a odst. 1 ZPP
367.c odst. 2 ZPP
7. odst. 324. ZPP
AI generated
Sodba II Ips 642/2008
Appeal dismissed; child custody change requires significant change in circumstances since prior settlement.
VSRS Sklep II Ips 53/2023
Supreme Court allows appeal dismissal by lower court as procedurally improper regarding a minor's mother. The mother lost standing only after the child became an adult. The court ruled the lower court erred in dismissing the appeal without prior assessment of legal interest. The decision clarifies that a mother retains standing to appeal regarding her minor child's maintenance until the child reaches adulthood. The court held that the lower court erred in dismissing the appeal without first assessing the mother's legal interest. The mother's status as a formal party was not lost merely because the child became an adult. The court ruled that the lower court erred in dismissing the appeal without first assessing the mother's legal interest. The mother's status as a formal party was not lost merely because the child became an adult. The court ruled that the lower court erred in dismissing the appeal without first assessing the mother's legal interest.
VSRS Sklep II DoR 192/2023
Supreme Court dismisses appeal admissibility request regarding second instance court's correction of first instance evidence ruling.
VSL Sklep IV Cp 148/2026
Appeal against custody and contact order dismissed; interim order regarding contact deemed inadmissible due to lack of legal interest.
VSM Sklep III Cp 192/2025
Court dismisses appeal on child support change, ruling school subsidies do not alter established alimony obligations.

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. V obravnavani nepravdni zadevi je predlagatelj vložil predlog za spremembo zaupanja mladoletnega otroka v varstvo in vzgojo, spremembo stikov in preživnine. Udeleženca sta leta 2012 sklenila sodno poravnavo, vendar je predlagatelj po osmih letih želel več stikov z mladoletnim otrokom.

2. Sodišče prve stopnje je odločilo, da se mld. A. A. zaupa v varstvo in vzgojo obema staršema (skupno starševstvo), naslov za vročanje pošiljk ter stalno prebivališče pa je določilo na naslovu nasprotne udeleženke. V II. točka izreka je odločilo o stikih. V III. točki izreka je odločilo, da kar zahteva predlagatelj več ali drugače, se zavrne in v IV, točki izreka, da vsak udeleženec nosi svoje stroške postopka.

3. Pritožbeno sodišče je pritožbi predlagatelja ugodilo in spremenilo prvo alinejo II. točke izreka, ki se nanaša na način izvrševanja stikov. Pritožbo nasprotne udeleženke (I. točka izreka) je zavrnilo.

4. V zvezi s sklepom višjega sodišča nasprotna udeleženka vlaga predlog za dopustitev revizije glede vprašanja:

Ali je pravno nepravilna odločitev o skupnem starševstvu, kadar je skupno starševstvo neprimerno in v škodo mladoletnega otroka ter v istem primeru določanje obsežnih stikov med očetom in mladoletnim otrokom?

5. Predlog ni utemeljen.

6. Vrhovno sodišče dopusti revizijo, če je od njegove odločitve mogoče pričakovati odločitev o pravnem vprašanju, pomembnem za zagotovitev pravne varnosti, enotne uporabe prava ali za razvoj prava prek sodne prakse (prvi odstavek 367.a člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku; v nadaljevanju ZPP). Ker v obravnavanem primeru pogoji za dopustitev revizije iz prvega odstavka 367.a člena ZPP niso podani, je Vrhovno sodišče predlog zavrnilo (drugi odstavek 367.c člena ZPP).

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