Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSRS Sklep V DoR 4/2024 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2024:V.DOR.4.2024 AI generated

Supreme Court allows review regarding exclusion of non-regulated parties from supervision proceedings under Article 22 of the Constitution.

Case Number VSRS Sklep V DoR 4/2024
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Partially Allowed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia granted permission for a review of the Administrative Court's decision. The Administrative Court rejected the plaintiffs' request to be recognized as third parties in a supervision proceeding over company A d.d., requiring them to pay a fee. The Supreme Court found the conditions for review met under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Administrative Dispute Act regarding the potential violation of Article 22 of the Constitution.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 22 of the Constitution; Article 367.a(1) of the Administrative Procedure Act; Article 1(1) of the Administrative Dispute Act: The Supreme Court may permit a review if the lower court's interpretation of the exclusion of non-regulated parties from supervision proceedings potentially violates the right to effective judicial protection guaranteed by Article 22 of the Constitution.

Keywords

AI generated
supervision proceedings third party participation Article 22 Constitution administrative review effective judicial protection

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 22 of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia
Article 367.a(1) of the Administrative Procedure Act
Article 1(1) of the Administrative Dispute Act
AI generated
UPRS Sodba III U 207/2023-22
Court dismisses third-party participation claim in financial market supervision proceedings under special law.
UPRS Sodba I U 1703/2023-16
Administrative court dismisses plaintiff's claim for third-party participation in securities regulator oversight proceedings.
VSRS Sklep I Up 233/2017
Appeal dismissed; plaintiff lacks legal interest as administrative act was already revoked and re-issued.
VSRS Sodba X Ips 185/2014
Appeal dismissed; auditor lacks standing in tax audit as no direct legal interest exists in employer's tax obligations.
UPRS Sodba I U 1707/2023-___
Administrative court dismisses third-party participation claim in financial instrument supervision proceedings under ZTFI-1. Third-party status excluded by special ZTFI-1 rules overriding general ZUP provisions. Court rejects application of third-party participation rules due to exclusive supervision procedure. Third-party status excluded by special ZTFI-1 rules overriding general ZUP provisions. Court rejects application of third-party participation rules due to exclusive supervision procedure.

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

Revizija se dopusti glede vprašanja:

- Ali je razlaga Upravnega sodišča RS o tem, da ZTFI-1 v nadzornih postopkih izključuje udeležbo vsake druge osebe, ki ni subjekt nadzora, četudi odločitev, sprejeta v takem postopku, neposredno posega v njene pravice ali pravne koristi, skladna z 22. členom Ustave RS?

[JEDRO]

Revizija se dopusti glede vprašanja:

- Ali je razlaga Upravnega sodišča RS o tem, da ZTFI-1 v nadzornih postopkih izključuje udeležbo vsake druge osebe, ki ni subjekt nadzora, četudi odločitev, sprejeta v takem postopku, neposredno posega v njene pravice ali pravne koristi, skladna z 22. členom Ustave RS?

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Upravno sodišče je zavrnilo tožbo tožnikov zoper sklep Agencije za trg vrednostnih papirjev (v nadaljevanju Agencije) št. ... z dne ... , s katerim je zavrnila zahtevo tožnikov za priznanje statusa stranskih udeležencev v postopku nadzora št. ... , ki se vodi nad družbo A. d. d. ter določila, da morajo tožniki Agenciji plačati takso v višini 420,00 EUR. Odločilo je še, da vsaka stranka krije svoje stroške postopka.

2. Zoper sodbo Upravnega sodišča vlagajo tožniki predlog za dopustitev revizije.

3. Vrhovno sodišče ugotavlja, da so izpolnjeni pogoji za dopustitev revizije iz prvega odstavka 367.a člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku v zvezi s prvim odstavkom 22. člena Zakona o upravnem sporu, glede vprašanja, opredeljenega v izreku sklepa. Revizijo je zato v tem obsegu dopustilo.

4. Sklep je bil sprejet soglasno.