Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSRS Sklep II DoR 440/2021 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2022:II.DOR.440.2021 AI generated

Supreme Court dismisses appeal request due to missing valid power of attorney for extraordinary legal remedy.

Case Number VSRS Sklep II DoR 440/2021
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 applicants' request for permission to appeal a final judgment. The applicants submitted a power of attorney dated in 2014, but the right to file an extraordinary legal remedy only arose after the judgment became final in 2021. The court ruled that a new power of attorney is mandatory for filing such remedies, rendering the submitted document invalid.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Zakon o pravdnem postopku (ZPP), 86. člen (1), 95. člen (2): In proceedings for extraordinary legal remedies, a party may act only through a lawyer who must submit a new power of attorney, which must be valid at the time the right to file the remedy arises.

Keywords

AI generated
extraordinary legal remedy power of attorney lawyer representation validity of mandate supreme court procedure

Cited Legislation

AI generated
86. člen (1) Zakona o pravdnem postopku
95. člen (2) Zakona o pravdnem postopku
377. člen Zakona o pravdnem postopku
324. člen (7) Zakona o pravdnem postopku

Cited Case Law

AI generated
VS RS II DoR 303/2021
II DoR 463/2018
Supreme Court dismisses appeal application due to non-compliant power of attorney lacking required new date.
II DoR 442/2018
Supreme Court dismisses appeal permission request due to forged power of attorney lacking validity date. The court rejected the request because the power of attorney was not new. The court ruled that the power of attorney was not new because it was forged. The court dismissed the appeal permission request because the power of attorney was not new. The court rejected the request because the power of attorney was not new. The court dismissed the appeal permission request because the power of attorney was not new.
II DoR 146/2017
Court dismisses lawyer's revision application because the power of attorney predates the final judgment.
AI generated
VSRS Sklep II DoR 459/2021
Supreme Court dismisses revision request as no important legal question was raised regarding compensation for registry deletion.
VSM Sodba I Cp 626/2024
Appeal dismissed; plaintiff's failure to report online fraud details breached duty of care under payment law.
VSL Sodba in sklep I Cp 1161/2023
Bankruptcy court dismisses claim for legal fees incurred before bankruptcy due to lack of prior declaration.
VSL sklep I Cpg 1240/2010
Contract law: Unilateral right to rescind construction contract upon latent defect notice within one year.
Sodba II Ips 305/2008
Slovenian Supreme Court dismisses appeal on limitation period when injury treatment stabilizes, not concludes.

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]

V postopku z izrednimi pravnimi sredstvi mora pooblaščenec za vložitev izrednega pravdnega sredstva sodišču predložiti novo pooblastilo. Novo pooblastilo je pooblastilo, ki izvira iz časa, ko je stranki nastala pravica do vložitve izrednega pravnega sredstva, to je po pravnomočnosti izpodbijane odločitve.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Sodišče prve stopnje je zavrnilo zahtevek tožnikov za plačilo 7.050,00 EUR vsakemu od njiju, skupaj z zakonskimi zamudnimi obrestmi.

2. Sodišče druge stopnje je pritožbo tožnikov zavrnilo in potrdilo sodbo sodišča prve stopnje.

3. Tožnika sta zoper sodbo sodišča druge stopnje vložila predlog za dopustitev revizije.

4. Predlog ni dovoljen.

5. V postopku z izrednimi pravnimi sredstvi, med katere spada tudi postopek s predlogom za dopustitev revizije, lahko stranka opravlja pravdna dejanja samo po pooblaščencu, ki je odvetnik (prvi odstavek 86. člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku; v nadaljevanju ZPP) in ki mora za vložitev izrednega pravdnega sredstva sodišču predložiti novo pooblastilo (drugi odstavek 95. člena ZPP). Novo pooblastilo je pooblastilo, ki izvira iz časa, ko je stranki nastala pravica do vložitve izrednega pravnega sredstva, to je po pravnomočnosti izpodbijane odločitve. 1

6. V obravnavanem primeru je sodba sodišča druge stopnje postala pravnomočna z dnem 16. 7. 2021. Vloženemu predlogu za dopustitev revizije z dne 13. 9. 2021 je odvetnik tožnikov priložil pooblastili, na katerih je naveden datum 24. 12. 2014 (A1, A2). To pomeni, da predloženi pooblastili nista novi (drugi odstavek 95. člena ZPP), zato predlog tožnikov za dopustitev revizije ni dovoljen.

7. Vrhovno sodišče je zato predlog zavrglo (primerjaj 377. člen ZPP).

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

1 Enako sklepi VS RS II DoR, 303/2021 z dne 1. 9. 2021, II DoR 463/2018 z dne 7. 3. 2019, II DoR 442/2018 z dne 7. 3. 2019, II DoR 146/2017 z dne 22. 6. 2017 in mnogi drugi.