Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSL sodba II Cp 2941/2011 ECLI:SI:VSLJ:2012:II.CP.2941.2011 AI generated

Slovenian court partially allows claim for removal of structures based on unjustified disturbance of ownership rights.

Case Number VSL sodba II Cp 2941/2011
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Partially Allowed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Second Civil Department of the Supreme Court of Slovenia partially upheld the appeal against the first-instance judgment regarding a dispute over land ownership. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant's structures on specific parcels constituted an unjustified disturbance of their property rights under Section 99 of the Property Law. The court ruled that while the plaintiff must prove ownership and the defendant's unjustified interference, the claim for removal of all structures was rejected because the defendant's possession was deemed justified or the disturbance was not fully established for the entire area.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

99. člen SPZ; 100. člen SPZ: A claim for removal of structures based on unjustified disturbance of ownership requires proof of ownership and unjustified interference, but the defendant's possession must also be justified and their belief in ownership must be excusable to constitute good faith possession.

Keywords

AI generated
unjustified disturbance of property good faith possession Section 99 Property Law removal of structures ownership rights excusable mistake possession awareness

Cited Legislation

AI generated
99. člen SPZ
100. člen SPZ

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

Pritožbi se delno ugodi in se sodba sodišča prve stopnje v drugem odstavku točke II/1 spremeni tako, da se tožbeni zahtevek v delu, s katerim je tožeča stranka zahtevala, da tožena stranka odstrani vse ostale stvari tako, da bosta sporna dela parc. št. 34/1 in 33/2 k.o. x. (v dolžini 60m in v širini 0,70m ter površini 42m) prosta vseh svari, zavrne. V preostalem delu se pritožba zavrne in se v izpodbijanem, a nespremenjenem delu potrdi sodba sodišča prve stopnje.

[JEDRO]

Vznemirjanje v smislu 99. člena SPZ predstavlja vsak nedopusten poseg v lastninsko pravico. Za utemeljenost takšne tožbe mora tožeča stranka trditi in dokazati, da je lastnica določene stvari in da tožena stranka v to lastninsko pravico neutemeljeno posega in jo s tem vznemirja.

Za obstoj dobroverne posesti mora biti poleg dejanske oblasti nad stvarjo podana tudi posestnikova zavest o lastništvu nepremičnine. Slednje pomeni, da je posestnik lahko v zmoti glede tega, komu dejansko pripada nepremičnina. Za njegovo zmoto pa ne zadošča samo dejanska ugotovitev, da ni vedel, komu stvar pripada, temveč mora biti njegova zmota tudi opravičljiva.