Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSRS Sklep II DoR 228/2024 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2024:II.DOR.228.2024 AI generated

Supreme Court dismisses review application as legal issues do not meet statutory review admissibility conditions under ZPP Art. 367a.

Case Number VSRS Sklep II DoR 228/2024
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 dismissed the applicant's request to allow a review against the second-instance court's decision. The applicant sought review regarding whether co-owners were necessary parties and if a partial settlement violated mandatory legal provisions. The court rejected the request because the identified legal questions did not satisfy the specific admissibility criteria set forth in Article 367a of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 367a of the Code of Civil Procedure; Article 367c of the Code of Civil Procedure: A review application is inadmissible if the legal issues raised do not meet the statutory conditions for admissibility under Article 367a.

Keywords

AI generated
review admissibility Code of Civil Procedure partial settlement co-ownership dispute mandatory provisions second instance decision review application

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 367a of the Code of Civil Procedure
Article 367c of the Code of Civil Procedure
AI generated
VSL sklep I Cp 3534/2014
Appeal allowed; court held that a clerical error in the date of a partial settlement does not render a lawsuit inadmissible if the case number and content are clear.
VSL Sklep I Cp 280/2021
Appeal granted; first-instance court erred by rejecting claim based on settlement without verifying its scope.
VDS sklep Pdp 167/2006
Appeal dismissed: Individual worker cannot challenge collective settlement without authorization as no legal interest exists.
VDSS sodba Pdp 271/2015
Appeal dismissed; annulment of court settlement is an extraordinary remedy, not a regular civil suit.
VSM sklep I Cp 1539/2014
Appeal dismissed: Claimant cannot challenge court settlement for non-performance or lack of legal representation.

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. Tožnica vlaga tožbo za razveljavitev (delne) sodne poravnave, ki je bila sklenjena med toženci. Navaja, da je bilo razpolaganje strank v nasprotju s prisilnimi predpisi. Sodišče prve stopnje je tožbeni zahtevek za razveljavitev sodne poravnave zavrnilo. Sodišče druge stopnje je pritožbo zoper odločitev o glavni stvari zavrnilo in potrdilo sodbo sodišča prve stopnje. Spremenilo je le odločitev o stroških postopka.

2. Predlog za dopustitev revizije zoper odločitev sodišča druge stopnje vlaga tožnica. Predlaga dopustitev revizije zaradi odločitve o pravnih vprašanjih: 1) Ali so v konkretnem primeru tožene stranke kot solastniki nepremičnine enotni in nujni sosporniki? 2) Ali delna sodna poravnava z dne 6. 10. 2022 pomeni razpolaganje strank, ki nasprotuje prisilnim predpisom ali moralnim pravilom?

3. Predlog ni utemeljen.

4. Vrhovno sodišče je ugotovilo, da glede vprašanj v predlogu niso podani pogoji za dopustitev revizije iz prvega odstavka 367.a člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku (v nadaljevanju ZPP). Zato je predlog za dopustitev revizije zavrnilo (367.c člen ZPP).

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