Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSRS Sklep II DoR 34/2025 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2025:II.DOR.34.2025 AI generated

Supreme Court dismisses appeal permission request by incapacitated adult as legally ineffective.

Case Number VSRS Sklep II DoR 34/2025
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court issued a declaratory ruling stating that a request for permission to appeal regarding guardianship proceedings has no legal effect. The petitioner, an adult under guardianship, argued for review of lower court decisions, but the court noted that such individuals cannot independently perform legal acts. Since the Civil Procedure Act lacks specific rules for appeals by incapacitated persons and their actions lack legal consequences, the request was deemed inadmissible.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

295. člen Družinskega zakonika; 81. člen ZPP: A request for permission to appeal filed by an adult under guardianship has no legal effect because such persons cannot independently perform legal acts and their actions produce no legal consequences.

Keywords

AI generated
adult guardianship legal capacity appeal permission declaratory ruling civil procedure law

Cited Legislation

AI generated
295. člen Družinskega zakonika
81. člen ZPP

Cited Case Law

AI generated
II DoR 341/2015
Court dismisses appeal request by legally incapacitated person as having no legal effect.
II DoR 389/2022
Supreme Court dismisses appeal request by a ward under guardianship as legally ineffective and non-binding.
II DoR 54/2024
Supreme Court dismisses review application by an adult under guardianship due to lack of legal effect and procedural standing.
AI generated
VSRS Sklep II DoR 286/2023
Supreme Court dismisses appeal permission request due to missing lawyer qualification and lack of procedural details.
Sklep X Ips 382/2009
Supreme Court dismisses appeal for failure to clearly state legal issues and cite Supreme Court case numbers.
VSRS Sklep I Up 64/2017
Appeal dismissed; court ruling on search warrant remains valid despite lack of specific appeal remedy under competition law.
VSK sklep Cpg 490/99
Appeal dismissed; cost waiver applies based on plaintiff's status at lawsuit filing, not at waiver request.
Sklep X Ips 60/2008
Supreme Court dismisses customs appeal review, citing lack of severe consequences and failure to prove inconsistent precedent.

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

Ugotovi se, da predlog za dopustitev revizije nima pravnih učinkov.

[JEDRO]

Ugotovi se, da predlog za dopustitev revizije nima pravnih učinkov.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Predlagatelj je zoper sklep Višjega sodišča v Ljubljani I Cp 1725/2024 z dne 6. 12. 2024 vložil predlog za dopustitev revizije, v katerem sodiščema prve in druge stopnje očita številne kršitve v postopku za spremembo obsega oz. prenehanje skrbništva nad odraslo osebo.

2. Predlog nima pravnih učinkov.

3. Predlagatelj je odrasla oseba, ki je bila postavljena pod skrbništvo. V skladu z 295. členom Družinskega zakonika (DZ) se šteje, da oseba, ki je postavljena pod skrbništvo, ne more samostojno opravljati nobenih pravnih poslov. Izrecne ureditve, kako torej ravnati v primeru, ko predlog za dopustitev revizije vloži oseba, ki je izgubila pravdno sposobnost, v Zakonu o pravdnem postopku (ZPP) ni. Slednji ureja primere prepoznih, nepopolnih in v smislu četrtega odstavka 343. člena ZPP nedovoljenih vlog, obravnavanega predloga pa mednje ni mogoče uvrstiti.

4. Bistvo citirane ureditve postavitve odrasle osebe pod skrbništvo je v tem, da izjava volje takšne osebe ne more imeti nikakršnih pravnih posledic. ZPP zato v drugem odstavku 81. člena sodišču nalaga, da se takšni osebi postavi skrbnika, kar pa v obravnavani zadevi ni več potrebno, saj predlagatelj skrbnico že ima. 1 Ostane le še dejstvo, da njena lastna ravnanja ne morejo imeti pravnih posledic.

5. Upoštevaje navedeno je Vrhovno sodišče o tem pravnem dejstvu zato izdalo ugotovitveni sklep.

1 Glej tudi sklepe VS RS II DoR 341/2015 z dne 7. 1. 2016, II DoR 389/2022 z dne 14. 7. 2022, II DoR 54/2024 z dne 7. 3. 2024.