Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSRS Sklep II DoR 513/2023 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2024:II.DOR.513.2023 AI generated

Supreme Court dismisses layperson's revision request due to lack of lawyer representation and standing.

Case Number VSRS Sklep II DoR 513/2023
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 layperson's request for revision regarding enforcement proceedings. The debtor argued that court fees should be waived and that the lower court's decision violated access to justice, but failed to submit the request through a licensed lawyer. The court ruled that under the Code of Civil Procedure, parties in enforcement matters must act through a lawyer unless they hold a legal qualification, which the debtor did not demonstrate.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

15. člen ZIZ; 86. člen ZPP: In enforcement proceedings, parties must act through a lawyer unless they hold a legal qualification; requests for revision by laypersons without such representation are inadmissible.

Keywords

AI generated
enforcement proceedings layperson standing lawyer representation revision request court fees waiver access to justice procedural capacity

Cited Legislation

AI generated
15. člen ZIZ
V postopku izvršbe in zavarovanja se smiselno uporabljajo določbe zakona o pravdnem postopku, če ni v tem ali v kakšnem drugem zakonu drugače določeno (15. člen ZIZ).
86. člen ZPP
367. člen ZPP
324. člen ZPP
AI generated
VSM sklep I Cp 856/2011
Appeal dismissed; tax exemption request for revision must be filed simultaneously with the appeal.
VSL sklep II Cp 1774/2011
Court dismisses appeal and confirms dismissal of claim due to client's lawyer's delay in requesting fee waiver.
VSRS Sklep X Ips 399/2014
Supreme Court dismisses administrative appeal due to failure to pay court fees within 15 days.
VSL Sklep I Cpg 408/2020
Court dismisses fee waiver request due to high property value exceeding statutory thresholds despite claimed encumbrances.
Sklep II Ips 35/2013
Supreme Court dismisses appeal for non-compliance with mandatory annex requirements for admissible appeals under ZPP. The court held that formal defects in admissible appeals preclude substantive review. The court ruled that appeals must include specific annexes as required by law. The court emphasized that formal defects in admissible appeals preclude substantive review. The court held that appeals must include specific annexes as required by law. The court emphasized that formal defects in admissible appeals preclude substantive review.

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]

Predlog se zavrže.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Dolžnik je vložil laičen predlog za revizijo. V njem navaja, da je sklep sodišča druge stopnje neutemeljen, saj izpolnjuje procesne kot materialne pogoje za taksno oprostitev, zato sodne takse ni bil dolžan plačati. Gre za nedopustno pogojevanje dostopa do sodnega varstva s sodnimi taksami. Upravičen je tudi do vrnitve v prejšnje stanje ter do podaljšanja roka.

2. Predlog ni dovoljen.

3. V postopku izvršbe in zavarovanja se smiselno uporabljajo določbe zakona o pravdnem postopku, če ni v tem ali v kakšnem drugem zakonu drugače določeno (15. člen ZIZ).

4. V postopku z izrednimi pravnimi sredstvi stranka opravlja postopkovna dejanja samo po pooblaščencu, ki je odvetnik, razen če ima sama ali njen zakoniti zastopnik opravljen pravniški državni izpit (tretji in četrti odstavek 86. člena ZPP). Dolžnik predloga ni vložil po pooblaščencu, ki je odvetnik, temveč sam, pri čemer ni niti zatrjeval niti izkazal, da bi imel opravljen pravniški državni izpit. Za vložitev predloga tako nima postulacijske sposobnosti. Če predlogu za dopustitev revizije ni priložen dokaz o izpolnjevanju pogojev iz četrtega odstavka 86. člena ZPP, sodišče vlogo zavrže (367.č člen ZPP).

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