Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSRS Sklep II DoR 57/2017 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2017:II.DOR.57.2017 AI generated

Supreme Court dismisses review application because conditions under Article 367a of the Civil Procedure Act are not met.

Case Number VSRS Sklep II DoR 57/2017
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 applicant's request for permission to file a review, upholding the lower court's dismissal of the claim for damages. The applicant argued that the first-instance court incorrectly applied criminal procedure rules regarding seized property and violated established case law by returning items to an unproven owner. The court determined that the specific procedural prerequisites for granting a review under the relevant article of the Civil Procedure Act were not satisfied.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 367a paragraph 1 of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 367c paragraph 2 of the Civil Procedure Act: A review application is inadmissible if the conditions for its admissibility under the first paragraph of Article 367a of the Civil Procedure Act are not met.

Keywords

AI generated
Civil Procedure Act review application admissibility conditions seized property damages claim

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 367a paragraph 1 of the Civil Procedure Act
Article 367c paragraph 2 of the Civil Procedure Act
Article 224 of the Criminal Procedure Act
Article 110 paragraph 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act
Article 110 paragraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act
Article 50 of the Property Law
Article 102 of the Property Law

Cited Case Law

AI generated
VSL II Cp 1028/2013
Trdi, da izpodbijana odločitev odstopa od sodbe VSL II Cp 1028/2013.
AI generated
VSL Sodba in sklep II Cp 1931/2020
Partial dismissal of appeal; damages for deportation and administrative permit costs upheld against non-citizen.
VSL Sodba I Cpg 387/2019
Appeal dismissed; court upheld dismissal of unjust enrichment and damages claims regarding unauthorized property use.
VSL sodba II Cp 3828/2006
Appeal court partially allows mortgagee's claim on costs, ruling lien rights arise upon land registry entry.
VSL sodba I Cpg 1346/2003
Consumer credit appeal dismissed; court upheld first instance ruling on insurance coverage for purpose-based loans.
VSM Sodba I Cp 1098/2019
Appellate court partially allows enrichment claim, adjusting first-instance judgment on debt and costs.

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]

Pogoji za dopustitev revizije iz prvega odstavka 367. a člena ZPP niso podani.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Sodišče prve stopnje je (tudi v ponovljenem sojenju) zavrnilo tožbeni zahtevek, da je toženka dolžna tožniku plačati znesek 13.750,00 EUR z zakonskimi zamudnimi obrestmi. Odločilo je še o stroških postopka.

2. Sodišče druge stopnje je tožnikovo pritožbo zavrnilo in potrdilo prvostopenjsko sodbo.

3. Tožnik v predlogu za dopustitev revizije navaja, da je sodišče v izpodbijani sodbi zmotno uporabilo določbi 224. člena in prvega odstavka 110. člena Zakona o kazenskem postopku (v nadaljevanju ZKP) s tem, ko je sporne zasežene predmete (namesto tožniku, kateremu so bili zaseženi) vrnilo domnevnemu oškodovancu, ki pa lastništva na njih nikoli ni dokazal. Trdi, da izpodbijana odločitev odstopa od sodbe VSL II Cp 1028/2013. Opozarja tudi na določbo drugega odstavka 110. člena ZKP in določbe o pridobitvi lastninske pravice na premičninah brez lastnika (50. in 102. člen Stvarnopravnega zakonika). Ne strinja se z zaključkom sodišča, da mu škoda ni nastala in da ni podana protipravnost (glede slednje se sklicuje na številne judikate Vrhovnega sodišča).

4. Predlog ni utemeljen.

5. Pogoji za dopustitev revizije iz prvega odstavka 367.a člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku niso podani, zato je Vrhovno sodišče tožnikov predlog zavrnilo (drugi odstavek 367.c člena istega zakona).