Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Sklep II Ips 897/2006 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2008:II.IPS.208.2008 AI generated

Appeal dismissed because plaintiff failed to state value for non-monetary claims, violating appeal requirements.

Case Number Sklep II Ips 897/2006
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 rejected the plaintiff's appeal against the first-instance judgment ordering tenants to vacate an apartment and declaring a 1999 pre-contract void. The plaintiff filed the appeal without specifying a monetary value for these non-monetary claims, and the defendants did not object to this omission. The court ruled that without a stated value, the plaintiff lacks the legal right to file an appeal, resulting in the dismissal of the review.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Zakon o pravdnem postopku; Appeal is inadmissible if the appellant fails to state a monetary value for non-monetary claims and the opposing party does not object thereto.

Keywords

AI generated
non-monetary claims appeal value requirement inadmissible appeal civil procedure law vacate premises

Cited Legislation

AI generated
377. člen Zakona o pravdnem postopku
AI generated
Sodba in sklep II Ips 206/2000
Appeal against eviction order dismissed; review rejected due to insufficient dispute value and procedural errors.
Sklep II Ips 290/2000
Appeal rejected because property dispute value under 1 million SIT violates new Civil Procedure Code review thresholds.
Sklep II Ips 473/99
Appeal dismissed because case value was not assessed, violating procedural requirements for appeals in property disputes.
VSL sodba I Cp 704/2011
Appeal dismissed; foreign citizen failed to acquire property rights due to mandatory reciprocity rules overriding corporate dissolution succession.
Sklep II Ips 306/2005
Supreme Court dismisses appeal; res judicata bars new suit on same claim despite statute of limitations expiry.

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]

Ker tožnik za nobenega od nedenarnih zahtevkov ni navedel vrednosti, niti niso tej opustitvi ugovarjali toženci, revident nima pravice do revizije.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Sodišče prve stopnje je zavrnilo tožbeni zahtevek, da se morajo toženci izseliti in izprazniti stanovanje v Ljubljani. Zavrnilo je tudi podrejen zahtevek, da je predpogodba z dne 15.1.1999, ki sta jo sklenila tožnik in prvi toženec za nakup omenjenega stanovanja, brez pravnih posledic. Pritožbeno sodišče je tožnikovo pritožbo zoper to sodbo zavrnilo in (v tem delu) potrdilo sodbo prve stopnje.

Zoper to sodbo je tožnik vložil revizijo.

Revizija ni dovoljena.

Tožnik je vložil revizijo zoper sodbo, s katero sta zavrnjena njegova nedenarna zahtevka - zahtevek, da morajo toženci izprazniti stanovanje v Ljubljani in (podrejen) zahtevek, da je predpogodba z dne 15. 1. 1999, sklenjena med njim in prvim tožencem za nakup omenjenega stanovanja, brez pravnih posledic. Za nobenega od teh zahtevkov ni navedel vrednosti (vrednost prvega zahtevka je sicer označil v točkah taksne tarife, vendar tako označena vrednost pomeni izostanek navedbe vrednosti - prim. pravno mnenje občne seje VS RS z dne 14. 12. 1994, Pravna mnenja 2/94 str. 5, 6), niti niso tej opustitvi ugovarjali toženci. Ko je tako, tožnik nima pravice do revizije (prim. pravno mnenje občne seje VS RS z dne 16. 12. 1993, poročilo VS RS 2/93, str. 12). Revizijsko sodišče jo je zato (kot nedovoljeno) zavrglo (377. čl. Zakona o pravdnem postopku - U. l. RS 26/99 in nasl.).