Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Sklep II Ips 80/2006 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2006:II.IPS.80.2006 AI generated

Appeal dismissed because non-lawyer defendants filed appeal personally without legal representation or bar exam qualification.

Case Number Sklep II Ips 80/2006
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 appeal filed by two defendants who represented themselves. The defendants argued for the annulment of lower court judgments regarding a debt of over one million SIT, but failed to prove they held a legal qualification. The court ruled that appeals in extraordinary proceedings require representation by a lawyer unless the party has passed the bar exam, which these defendants did not demonstrate.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Zakon o pravdnem postopku (ZPP), 374. člen (2. odstavek); 377. člen: In extraordinary proceedings, parties must act through a lawyer unless they have passed the bar exam; appeals filed personally by unqualified individuals are inadmissible.

Keywords

AI generated
extraordinary proceedings legal representation requirement bar exam qualification inadmissible appeal self-representation limitation

Cited Legislation

AI generated
374. člen Zakona o pravdnem postopku (ZPP)
377. člen Zakona o pravdnem postopku (ZPP)
AI generated
Sodba II Ips 290/2003
Slovenian Supreme Court dismisses appeal against liability for burglary due to insufficient security measures. The court rejects claims of negligence regarding the alarm system and the minor's age. The decision upholds the lower courts' finding of no contributory negligence. The court clarifies that liability depends on the time of the tort, not the trial. The appeal is rejected under Article 378 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Sodba II Ips 212/2002
Slovenian Supreme Court dismissed appeal on bank loan termination, upholding contractual freedom over statutory defaults.
Sodba II Ips 233/94
Appeal dismissed; lower court correctly applied tort law regarding mental damages for disability and disfigurement.
Sklep II Ips 161/2000
Appeal dismissed; late service to counsel did not extend appeal period for defendant under Slovenian Civil Procedure Code.
Sodba in sklep II Ips 639/2004
Court dismisses appeal in traffic accident case, upholding liability ratio and damages calculation under ZOR.

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 zavrže.

[JEDRO]

Toženca, ki sta sama vložila revizijo, bi jo smela vložiti samo po odvetniku. Zato njuna revizija ni dovoljena.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Sodišče prve stopnje je razsodilo, da sta toženca nerazdelno dolžna plačati tožniku 1,060.468,50 SIT z zakonskimi zamudnimi obrestmi in pravdnimi stroški.

Sodišče druge stopnje je pritožbo tožencev zavrnilo in prvostopenjsko sodbo potrdilo.

Proti sodbi sodišča druge stopnje sta toženca vložila revizijo. Smiselno uveljavljata revizijski razlog bistvene kršitve določb pravdnega postopka in predlagata razveljavitev sodb sodišč druge in prve stopnje.

Po 375. členu Zakona o pravdnem postopku (ZPP, Uradni list RS, št. 26/99-2/2004) je bila revizija vročena tožniku, ki nanjo ni odgovoril in Vrhovnemu državnemu tožilstvu Republike Slovenije.

Revizija ni dovoljena.

Revizija spada med izredna pravna sredstva (26. poglavje ZPP). V postopku z njimi lahko stranka opravlja pravdna dejanja samo po pooblaščencu, ki je odvetnik (tretji odstavek 86. člena ZPP). Izjemoma smeta opravljati pravdna dejanja v takšnem postopku stranka sama ali njen zakoniti zastopnik, če imata opravljen pravniški državni izpit (četrti odstavek 86. člena ZPP).

V tej pravdni zadevi sta revizijo vložila toženca sama. Ob vložitvi revizije nista zatrjevala, da imata oba ali eden izmed njiju opravljen pravniški državni izpit, niti nista predložila dokaza o tem.

Tako se pokaže, da sta revizijo vložila toženca sama, ki te pravice nimata. Takšna revizija je nedovoljena (drugi odstavek 374. člena ZPP). Zato jo je revizijsko sodišče zavrglo (377. člen ZPP).