Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSRS Sklep II DoR 288/2025 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2025:II.DOR.288.2025 AI generated

Supreme Court dismisses petition for leave to appeal as direct appeal is statutorily permitted.

Case Number VSRS Sklep II DoR 288/2025
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 defendant's petition for leave to appeal against the second instance court's rejection of their appeal. The defendant argued for a preliminary review, but the court noted that the law already permits a direct appeal against the second instance decision under Article 384 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Consequently, the court ruled that a separate petition for leave to appeal was unnecessary and therefore inadmissible.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 384 paragraph 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure; Article 377 of the Code of Civil Procedure: When a direct appeal is statutorily permitted against a second instance decision, a separate petition for leave to appeal is inadmissible.

Keywords

AI generated
petition for leave to appeal direct appeal second instance decision Code of Civil Procedure inadmissible petition supreme court review procedural requirement

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 384 paragraph 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure
Article 377 of the Code of Civil Procedure

Cited Case Law

AI generated
III DoR 36/2025
Supreme Court dismisses review application because review is mandatory against second-instance rulings under ZPP. The court rejected the request for permission to appeal a dismissed claim. Since the law mandates review against second-instance rulings, a separate permission request is unnecessary and thus inadmissible.
II DoR 491/2023
Supreme Court dismisses review admissibility request because appeal is automatically reviewable under law.
II DoR 381/2022
Appeal against second-instance dismissal rejected; review always allowed per law, making pre-approval request inadmissible.
AI generated
Sklep II Ips 851/2008
Supreme Court dismisses appeal as individual claims fall below statutory revision threshold despite joint action.
VSL Sodba II Cp 1167/2019
Appeal dismissed; lawyer's negligence in filing to court barred defense of apparent mistake by client.
VSL sodba I Cp 3037/2015
Appeal dismissed; defendant must raise corporate successor defense in answer, not appeal, regarding business transfer liability.
VSL sodba Cpg 1138/93
Appeal dismissed; defendant failed to prove timely objection to claim via post, satisfying default judgment conditions.
Sodba II Ips 771/2005
Appeal dismissed; claimant's evidence contradicted expert report, so court rejected permanent injury allegations.

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]

Predlog se zavrže.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Sodišče prve stopnje je z zamudno sodbo odločilo, da je oporoka zapustnika A. A. z 22. 9. 2011 nična, toženec pa mora tožniku povrniti pravdne stroške.

2. Sodišče druge stopnje je pritožbo toženca zavrglo.

3. Zoper sklep sodišča druge stopnje vlaga toženec predlog za dopustitev revizije.

4. Predlog ni dovoljen.

5. Zoper sklep, s katerim je sodišče druge stopnje zavrglo pritožbo, je vselej dovoljena revizija (tretji odstavek 384. člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku, v nadaljevanju ZPP). Ker je torej revizija zoper izpodbijani sklep dovoljena že po samem zakonu, predlog za dopustitev revizije ni dovoljen,1 zato ga je Vrhovno sodišče ob smiselni uporabi 377. člena ZPP zavrglo.

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

1 Tako npr. sklepi Vrhovnega sodišča III DoR 36/2025 z dne 13. 5. 2025, II DoR 491/2023 z dne 25. 1. 2024 in II DoR 381/2022 z dne 5. 10. 2022. Glej tudi N. Betetto, O nekaterih vprašanjih dopuščene revizije po ZPP-E, Odvetnik, 92 (2019), str. 7 do 15.