Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSRS Sklep II DoR 533/2023 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2024:II.DOR.533.2023 AI generated

Supreme Court dismisses lay revision request because applicant failed to prove legal qualification.

Case Number VSRS Sklep II DoR 533/2023
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 a lay application for permission to file a revision against a lower court's decision. The applicant, acting as a party without legal representation, argued for a three-judge panel and full tax exemption but failed to demonstrate that they held a legal qualification. The court ruled that under the relevant statutes, a party must act through a lawyer or prove their own legal qualification to file such a request, leading to the dismissal.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

367.č ZPP; 15. člen ZIZ: A party may file a request for permission to appeal only through a lawyer or, if acting personally, must prove they have passed the state bar examination.

Keywords

AI generated
lay application legal qualification permission to appeal state bar exam ZPP provision ZIZ requirement procedural standing

Cited Legislation

AI generated
367.č ZPP
15. člen ZIZ
AI generated
VSRS Sklep II DoR 65/2021
Supreme Court dismisses appeal admissibility request due to failure to meet statutory conditions for review. The court rejects the argument regarding unequal treatment of debtors and creditors. The decision clarifies that procedural rules for review apply uniformly regardless of the party's status. The court notes that the statutory fiction of service applies even when the debtor proves prolonged absence due to illness. The court emphasizes that the legal fiction of service applies even when the debtor proves prolonged absence due to illness. The court emphasizes that the legal fiction of service applies even when the debtor proves prolonged absence due to illness.
VSRS Sklep I Up 32/2017
Appeal dismissed because appellant failed to prove holding of bar exam required for filing appeal.
VSL sklep I Cpg 249/2005
Court dismisses appeal confirming lower court's lack of jurisdiction due to new tax law timing.
VSL sklep II Cp 4160/2009
Appeal against tax exemption order allowed; appeal against tax assessment dismissed due to non-existence of tax at the time.
VSL sklep I Cpg 962/2010
Appeal allowed; default judgment revoked due to unconstitutional procedural law provision and lack of legal basis.

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 zavrže.

[JEDRO]

Ker je dolžnik predlog vložil sam, pri tem pa ni izkazal, da ima opravljen pravniški državni izpit, njegov predlog ni dovoljen, zato ga je Vrhovno sodišče zavrglo (367.č člen ZPP v zvezi s 15. členom ZIZ).

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Dolžnik je zoper v uvodu navedeni sklep sodišča druge stopnje vložil laičen predlog za dopustitev revizije. Sodišču druge stopnje očita, da bi moralo odločati v senatu treh sodnikov in da je nekritično sledilo sodišču prve stopnje. Zatrjuje, da je bil upravičen do taksne oprostitve v celoti. Nasprotuje nastopu fikcije vročitve in pojasnjuje, da je bil odsoten iz upravičenih razlogov, zato je njegov ugovor pravočasen in utemeljen, pritožbeni razlogi pa relevantni. Sklicuje se tudi na odstop od sodne prakse. Meni, da bi dopustitev revizije v konkretni zadevi bistveno prispevala k večji pravni varnosti, enotni uporabi prava ter razvoju prava preko sodne prakse.

2. Predlog ni dovoljen.

3. Po tretjem in četrtem odstavku 86. člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku (v nadaljevanju ZPP) v zvezi s 15. členom Zakona o izvršbi in zavarovanju (v nadaljevanju ZIZ) lahko stranka v postopku z izrednimi pravnimi sredstvi opravlja procesna dejanja samo po pooblaščencu, ki je odvetnik, sama pa le, če izkaže, da ima ona ali njen zakoniti zastopnik opravljen pravniški državni izpit. Predlagatelj (dolžnik) sam vlaga predlog, pri tem pa ne izkaže, da ima opravljen pravniški državni izpit. Njegov predlog zato ni dovoljen in ga je Vrhovno sodišče zavrglo (367.č člen ZPP v zvezi s 15. členom ZIZ).

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