Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSRS Sklep III DoR 72/2025 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2025:III.DOR.72.2025 AI generated

Supreme Court allows review regarding jurisdiction between AKOS agency and general court in economic dispute.

Case Number VSRS Sklep III DoR 72/2025
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Partially Allowed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia granted the request for leave to appeal on the specific issue of jurisdiction. The lower court had dismissed the plaintiff's claim, ruling that the general court lacked jurisdiction and that the matter fell under the administrative authority of the Agency for Communications Networks and Services (AKOS). The Supreme Court determined that the conditions for allowing a review under Article 367.a of the Act on Civil Procedure Law are met for this precise legal question.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 367.a of the Act on Civil Procedure Law; The Supreme Court may grant leave for a review when a question of jurisdiction between an administrative agency and a general court in an economic dispute is raised, provided the lower court's decision on this issue is contested.

Keywords

AI generated
jurisdiction economic dispute administrative agency general court leave for review civil procedure law AKOS

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 367.a of the Act on Civil Procedure Law
Article 324, paragraph 7 of the Act on Civil Procedure Law
AI generated
VSRS Sklep III DoR 17/2023
Supreme Court allows review regarding Slovenian court jurisdiction over non-contractual bank liability in UK.
VSL Sklep I Cp 736/2023
Consumer jurisdiction dismissed; service performed in Slovenia makes Slovenian court competent under Brussels I bis Regulation.
VSL sklep II Cp 759/2007
Slovenian court lacks jurisdiction over a contractual claim against a non-resident BiH citizen under EU Regulation 44/2001.
VSL Sklep I Cp 450/2020
Appeal dismissed; Brussels I Regulation applies to cross-border insurance disputes, not ZMZPP.
VDS sklep Pdp 223/2004
Appeal allowed; no proof of legal interest required for employee to challenge final employer decision under ZTPDR.

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

Revizija se dopusti glede vprašanja, ali je za odločitev v zadevi podana pristojnost Agencije za komunikacijska omrežja in storitve Republike Slovenije (v nadaljevanju navedena s kratico AKOS), ki odloča v upravnem postopku, ali pa je podana pristojnost sodnega odločanja (sodišča splošne pristojnosti v gospodarskem sporu).

[JEDRO]

Revizija se dopusti glede vprašanja, ali je za odločitev v zadevi podana pristojnost Agencije za komunikacijska omrežja in storitve Republike Slovenije (v nadaljevanju navedena s kratico AKOS), ki odloča v upravnem postopku, ali pa je podana pristojnost sodnega odločanja (sodišča splošne pristojnosti v gospodarskem sporu).

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Sodišče druge stopnje je zavrnilo pritožbo tožeče stranke in potrdilo sklep sodišča prve stopnje, s katerim je ugodilo ugovoru tožene stranke, da ni podana sodna pristojnost in zavrglo tožbo.

2. Tožeča stranka zoper sklep sodišča druge stopnje vlaga predlog za dopustitev revizije.

3. Vrhovno sodišče ugotavlja, da so izpolnjeni pogoji za dopustitev revizije iz prvega odstavka 367.a člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku (v nadaljevanju ZPP), glede vprašanja, opredeljenega v izreku tega sklepa. Revizijo je zato v tem obsegu dopustilo.

4. Sklep je bil sprejet soglasno (sedmi odstavek 324. člena ZPP).