Legislator Rechtsprechung & Gesetzgebung
DE FR IT EN
In Legislator analysieren
Sklep III Ips 93/2008 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2008:III.IPS.93.2008 KI-generiert

Appeal dismissed because appellant failed to prove qualification as a lawyer required to file appeal personally.

Geschäftsnummer Sklep III Ips 93/2008
Gericht / Behörde
Rechtsordnung Slowenien (SI)
Entscheiddatum
Ausgang Abgewiesen (Dismissed)
Originalquelle öffnen Maschinenlesbares Markdown (.md)

Legislator-Zusammenfassung

KI-generiert

The Supreme Court of Slovenia dismissed the appeal lodged by the appellant against the second-instance court's judgment. The appellant filed the appeal personally without asserting possession of a legal qualification, which is a mandatory procedural prerequisite under the Code of Civil Procedure. Consequently, the court rejected the appeal as inadmissible because the fundamental condition for the appellant's personal participation in the proceedings was not met.

Legislator-Regeste

KI-generiert

86. odstavek 3. in 4. ZPP; 377. ZPP: An appeal filed personally by a party without a legal qualification is inadmissible unless the party or their legal representative holds a valid legal qualification.

Schlagwörter

KI-generiert
legal qualification requirement personal appeal filing inadmissible appeal Code of Civil Procedure procedural capacity lawyer qualification supreme court ruling Klagebewilligung

Zitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen

KI-generiert
86. odstavek 3. ZPP
86. odstavek 4. ZPP
377. ZPP

Zitierte Rechtsprechung

KI-generiert
II Ips 3/2007
Supreme Court dismisses a party's own appeal without proving they passed the bar exam under mandatory lawyer representation rules.
II Ips 321/2007
Supreme Court dismisses lay revision due to mandatory lawyer representation and expired filing deadline.
II Ips 105/2007
Slovenian Supreme Court dismisses appeal filed by property owner without a lawyer's power of attorney.
II Ips 614/2006
Supreme Court dismisses appeal against rejection of appeal due to lack of legal standing and capacity. Appeal rejected for lack of legal standing and capacity.
II Ips 831/2006
Appeal dismissed because case value is below statutory threshold and client lacks lawyer qualification.
II Ips 436/2006
Supreme Court dismisses appeal filed in violation of ZPP Art. 86 and without defined subject value.
II Ips 634/2006
Supreme Court dismisses layperson's appeal as only lawyers or those with bar exams can file appeals.
II Ips 186/2007
Appeal rejected because claim value under threshold and client lacked lawyer license.
II Ips 416/2006
2007), II Ips 416/2006 (sklep z dne 20.
III Ips 156/2006
Slovenian Supreme Court dismisses review due to unauthorized filing by non-lawyer representative lacking bar exam.
KI-generiert
VSRS Sklep II Upr 72/2016
Court fines lawyer for insulting judiciary and threatening criminal proceedings in appeal filing.
VSRS Sklep I Up 65/2016
Appeal dismissed because appellant failed to prove holding of bar exam required for self-filing appeals.
VSK sklep I Cp 311/2007
Appeal allowed; transitional rules exempted 1998 filing from mandatory lawyer representation in extraordinary proceedings.
Sodba in sklep X Ips 1016/2006
Administrative court dismissed appeal because deceased plaintiff could not be a party to the lawsuit.
VSRS Sklep I Up 186/2016
Supreme Court dismisses appeal as time-barred due to late mailing of the appeal document.

Fragen Sie sich, wie dieser Entscheid auf Ihren Fall anwendbar ist?

Prüfen Sie diesen Entscheid zusammen mit Bundesrecht, kantonalen Erlassen, Kommentaren und Folgeentscheiden in Legislator AI.

Fall in Legislator öffnen →

Volltext

Revizija se zavrže.

[JEDRO]

Tožnik je zoper sodbo sodišča druge stopnje sam vložil revizijo, pri čemer ni niti trdil, da ima opravljen pravniški državni izpit. Ker ni izpolnjena temeljna procesna predpostavka za njeno vsebinsko obravnavo, revizija ni dovoljena.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. V postopku z izrednimi pravnimi sredstvi lahko stranka opravlja pravdna dejanja samo po pooblaščencu, ki je odvetnik (tretji odstavek 86. člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku – ZPP), razen če ima sama, ali njen zakoniti zastopnik, opravljen pravniški državni izpit (četrti odstavek 86. člena ZPP).

2. Tožnik je zoper sodbo sodišča druge stopnje sam vložil revizijo, pri čemer ni niti trdil, da ima opravljen pravniški državni izpit. Ker ni izpolnjena temeljna procesna predpostavka za njeno vsebinsko obravnavo, revizija ni dovoljena. Revizijsko sodišče jo je zavrglo na podlagi 377. člena ZPP.

3. Odločitev sledi sklepu II Ips 3/2007 z dne 7. 6. 2007, v katerem je Vrhovno sodišče natančno pojasnilo, zakaj v primeru pomanjkanja postulacijske sposobnosti drugačna odločitev, kot je zavrženje revizije, ni mogoča. Enako je bilo sklenjeno tudi v primerih: II Ips 321/2007 (sklep z dne 14. 6. 2007), II Ips 105/2007 (sklep z dne 30. 8. 2007), II Ips 614/2006 (sklep z dne 30. 8. 2007), II Ips 831/2006 (sklep z dne 30. 8. 2007), II Ips 436/2006 (sklep z dne 30. 8. 2007), II Ips 634/2006 (sklep z dne 13. 9. 2007), II Ips 186/2007 (sklep z dne 13. 9. 2007), II Ips 416/2006 (sklep z dne 20. 9. 2007), III Ips 156/2006 (sklep z dne 16. 10. 2007).