Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Sklep II DoR 225/2010 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2010:II.DOR.225.2010 AI generated

Supreme Court dismisses revision request as conditions of Article 367a of ZPP were not met.

Case Number Sklep II DoR 225/2010
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 request for permission to file a revision against the second-instance judgment. The defendant argued that the new Article 214 of the Code of Civil Procedure affected proceedings started before its enactment and questioned the sufficiency of the appellate court's reasoning. The court rejected this claim because the specific conditions required under Article 367a of the Code of Civil Procedure were not demonstrated in the request.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 367a paragraph 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure; Article 367c paragraph 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure: A request for permission to file a revision is inadmissible if the applicant fails to demonstrate that the conditions stipulated in Article 367a paragraph 1 are met.

Keywords

AI generated
Code of Civil Procedure revision permission Article 367a second instance judgment sufficiency of reasoning

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 367a paragraph 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure
Article 367c paragraph 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure
Article 214 paragraph 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure
AI generated
VSM Sodba in sklep I Cpg 67/2018
Appeal allowed; court remands case regarding rent assessment and withdrawal of admission due to procedural flaws.
VSL Sodba I Cp 260/2023
Appeal dismissed; co-owner entitled to rent despite violence and renovation costs without counterclaim.
VSL Sodba II Cp 238/2020
Appeal dismissed; contribution to joint property overrides unjust enrichment claims upon divorce. Contribution to joint property overrides unjust enrichment claims upon divorce.
VSL Sodba in sklep I Cp 1175/2019
Appeal dismissed; co-owner's partial use of undivided property without consent does not constitute unjust enrichment. Co-owners cannot demand full compensation for partial use.
Sklep II DoR 633/2010
Claim for unjust enrichment dismissed; plaintiff failed to prove defendant prevented her from using shared space.

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 zavrne.

[JEDRO]

V tej zadevi niso izkazani pogoji iz prvega odstavka 367.a člena ZPP, zato je bil toženčev predlog zavrnjen.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Sodišče druge stopnje je zavrnilo toženčevo pritožbo in potrdilo prvostopenjsko sodbo, po kateri mora toženec tožniku plačati 3.650 EUR s pripadki, ker mu je z zamenjavo ključavnice onemogočil uporabo solastnega stanovanja. Prisojeni znesek predstavlja takoimenovano tožnikovemu solastninskemu deležu sorazmerno uporabnino za obdobje petdesetih mesecev.

2. Toženec v predlogu za dopustitev revizije proti drugostopenjski sodbi sprašuje o vplivu novega drugega odstavka 214. člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku (ZPP) na postopke, ki so se začeli pred uveljavitvijo zadnje novele in o standardu obrazloženosti pritožbenih odločb, ker trdi, da ni dobil odgovora na vse pritožbene trditve.

3. Predlog ni utemeljen.

4. Vrhovno sodišče ugotavlja, da v tej zadevi niso izkazani pogoji iz prvega odstavka 367.a člena ZPP, zato je na podlagi drugega odstavka 367.c člena ZPP zavrnilo neutemeljen toženčev predlog.