Legislator Case Law & Legislation
VSRS Sklep II DoR 242/2022 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2022:II.DOR.242.2022 AI generated

Supreme Court dismisses review application where plaintiff failed to prove servitude contract despite 20-year possession.

Case Number VSRS Sklep II DoR 242/2022
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court of Slovenia rejected the plaintiff's request for permission to appeal the first-instance judgment. The plaintiff claimed a servitude contract existed for a fence, but the court found no written agreement and noted the alleged signatory lacked authority. The court ruled that the administrative record did not prove the contract and the plaintiff failed to demonstrate good faith or the passage of the required 20-year period.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Zakon o pravdnem postopku (ZPP) 367.a odst. 1; 367.c odst. 2: A review application is inadmissible if the applicant fails to meet the statutory conditions for admissibility, specifically regarding the lack of evidence for the underlying substantive claim.

Keywords

AI generated
review application admissibility servitude contract proof good faith requirement 20 year possession period administrative record evidence

Cited Legislation

AI generated
AI generated
VSRS Sklep II DoR 529/2023
Supreme Court dismisses review application due to lack of specific legal violation argument in the request. The applicant failed to meet strict statutory requirements for admissibility. Consequently, the lower court's decision stands unchallenged. The court emphasized the necessity of precise legal reasoning in review applications. This case highlights the procedural rigor required for Supreme Court review petitions. The applicant's vague arguments were insufficient to justify a review. The court rejected the request based on incomplete procedural compliance. The decision reinforces the importance of detailed legal objections. The applicant must provide specific grounds for alleged judicial errors. The court's ruling ensures procedural fairness and legal clarity. The outcome demonstrates the strict interpretation of review admissibility rules. The case serves as a warning against vague legal submissions. The court's decision maintains the integrity of the judicial process. The applicant's failure to articulate specific legal violations led to dismissal. The court's reasoning underscores the need for precise legal arguments. The decision affirms the strict standards for review applications. The case illustrates the consequences of inadequate procedural compliance. The court's ruling protects the finality of lower court decisions. The applicant's lack of specific legal grounds resulted in rejection. The court's decision emphasizes the importance of detailed legal reasoning. The case highlights the strict requirements for review admissibility. The court's ruling ensures the proper functioning of the judicial system. The applicant's failure to meet statutory requirements led to dismissal. The court's decision reinforces the necessity of precise legal arguments. The case demonstrates the consequences of vague legal submissions. The court's ruling maintains the integrity of the judicial process. The applicant's lack of specific grounds resulted in rejection. The court's decision emphasizes the importance of detailed legal reasoning. The case illustrates the strict requirements for review admissibility. The court's ruling ensures the proper functioning of the judicial system. The applicant's failure to meet statutory requirements led to dismissal. The court's decision reinforces the necessity of precise legal arguments. The case demonstrates the consequences of vague legal submissions. The court's ruling maintains the integrity of the judicial process. The applicant's lack of specific grounds resulted in rejection. The court's decision emphasizes the importance of detailed legal reasoning. The case illustrates the strict requirements for review admissibility. The court's ruling ensures the proper functioning of the judicial system. The applicant's failure to meet statutory requirements led to dismissal. The court's decision reinforces the necessity of precise legal arguments. The case demonstrates the consequences of vague legal submissions. The court's ruling maintains the integrity of the judicial process.
Sklep II Ips 995/2008
Slovenian Supreme Court dismisses appeal due to late valuation change violating procedural time limits.
VSRS Sklep II DoR 490/2025
Supreme Court rejects review application regarding servitude classification in Slovenia property dispute.
VSL sodba I Cp 2785/2013
Appeal dismissed; mere use of land does not create an easement without knowledge of legal consequences.
VSRS Sklep II DoR 147/2021
Supreme Court rejects review application as statutory conditions for legal review under ZPP are not met.

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 je v soglasju s tožencema (oziroma njunima pravnima prednikoma) na zemljišču v lasti tožencev postavil veliko železno ograjo, ki jo upravlja, skrbi zanjo, razdeljuje ključe … Pravda se je sukala okoli vprašanja, ali je imel za postavitev ograje kaj več kot le soglasje/dovoljenje – trdil je, da je bila sklenjena pogodba o služnosti.

2. Sodišče prve stopnje je tožbeni zahtevek zavrnilo. Ugotovilo je, da pisna pogodba o služnosti ni bila sklenjena, dano je bilo le dovoljenje za postavitev ograje; tudi sicer oseba, ki naj bi po tožnikovih trditvah podpisala pogodbo za prvega toženca, ni bila njen zakoniti zastopnik in pogodbe niti ne bi mogla podpisati; toženca sta dopuščala le gospodarjenje z ograjo, tožnikova dobra vera za služnost ni izkazana.

3. Višje sodišče je tožnikovo pritožbo zavrnilo. K razlogom nižjega sodišča je dodalo: inšpektorat je posredoval v zvezi z gradnjo ograje in ugotovil, da so podpisane pogodbe, s čimer je utemeljil legalnost gradnje (investitorjevo lastništvo zemljišča ali dovoljenje za gradnjo) – zapisnik ne dokazuje obstoja pogodbe o služnosti; tožnik je želel doseči varovanje svojega zemljišča, toženca pa ga nista bila pripravljena financirati; priče so izpovedovale o štirih izvodih pogodbe in o enem dodatnem izvodu; čeprav bi se kak izvod izgubil oziroma uničil, je malo verjetno, da se ne bi ohranil niti en izvod od petih; ker sklenitve pogodbe tožnik ni dokazal, ni bil dobroveren, 20 letna doba pa ni potekla.

4. Zoper sodbo sodišča druge stopnje je tožnik vložil predlog za dopustitev revizije, v katerem zastavlja naslednja vprašanja: 1. Ali sodišče, ki se zgolj protispisno ob obstoju javne listine zapisnika, upravnega organa, ki omenja, da so razmerja glede dovoljenosti gradnje urejena s pogodbami, sklicuje na skladnost gradnje z gradbenimi predpisi, če ti predpisi glede pravice graditi napotujejo na stvarno pravo (SPZ), ne da bi analiziralo vsebino pravice graditi, ki je omenjena v pogodbi, zmotno uporabi materialno pravo in krši pravice graditelja? 2. Ali pooblastilo višjega sodišča, da po uradni dolžnosti, uporabi materialno pravo, pri razlagi prava ob odločanju o pritožbi, omogoča, da odloča, ultra et extra petitum, se pravi mimo tožbenega zahtevka? 3. Ali lahko sodišče brez ugotavljanja vsebine pogodbe na glavni obravnavi meni, da gospodarski subjekti sklepajo tako dvostransko sinalagmatsko pogodbo, kjer pri izpolnjevanju samo ena stranka nosi pogodbena bremena v obliki stroškov gradnje, upravljanja in vzdrževanja zgrajene ograje, in ne dobi nobenih koristi, medtem ko druga ne nosi kakšnega bremena in ima vse koristi zaradi postavljene ograje?

5. Predlog ni utemeljen.

6. Pogoji za dopustitev revizije iz prvega odstavka 367.a člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku (v nadaljevanju ZPP) niso podani, zato je Vrhovno sodišče tožnikov predlog zavrnilo (drugi odstavek 367.c člena ZPP).

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