Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSRS Sklep II DoR 93/2017 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2017:II.DOR.93.2017 AI generated

Supreme Court dismisses appeal request filed by non-lawyer due to lack of legal standing under ZPP Art. 374(2).

Case Number VSRS Sklep II DoR 93/2017
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 appeal a final second-instance judgment. The applicant, lacking a law degree, filed the request personally without a lawyer, violating procedural requirements for extraordinary remedies. The court ruled the request inadmissible because only lawyers or those with a legal degree may file such motions, rendering the filing a non-curable procedural defect.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Art. 86(3), Art. 86(4), Art. 374(2) ZPP: In proceedings for extraordinary remedies, only a lawyer or a person with a legal degree may file motions; requests filed by others without such qualification are inadmissible as non-curable procedural defects.

Keywords

AI generated
extraordinary remedies legal standing procedural defect lawyer qualification ZPP Article 374 postulacijska sposobnost inadmissible request

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Art. 86(3) ZPP
Art. 86(4) ZPP
Art. 374(2) ZPP
AI generated
Sklep X Ips 286/2008
Appeal dismissed as the legal issue raised was not significant for the case's substance under administrative law.
Sklep III DoR 111/2010
Court dismisses debtor's request to allow review in enforcement proceedings as review is not permitted under ZIZ.
Sklep X Ips 218/2013
Supreme Court dismisses appeal in land parcelation case due to lack of severe consequences and monetary threshold. Appeal dismissed as no severe consequences or monetary threshold met for review. Court rejects appeal in land parcelation case citing lack of severe consequences and monetary threshold. Appeal dismissed because no severe consequences or monetary threshold met for review. Court rejects appeal in land parcelation case due to lack of severe consequences and monetary threshold. Appeal dismissed as no severe consequences or monetary threshold met for review. Court rejects appeal in land parcelation case citing lack of severe consequences and monetary threshold.
Sklep III DoR 2/2009
Supreme Court dismisses debtor's request for leave to appeal in enforcement proceedings as appeals are not permitted there.
Sklep X Ips 530/2008
Appeal dismissed because customs procedure renewal dispute lacks monetary value and fails review conditions.

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 zavrže.

[JEDRO]

Ker je predlagatelj vložil predlog sam in ker po zakonu nima te pravice spričo pomanjkanja postulacijske sposobnosti (gre za neodpravljivo procesno pomanjkljivost), je njegov predlog nedovoljen na podlagi drugega odstavka 374. člena ZPP.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Toženec je zoper pravnomočno odločbo sodišča druge stopnje vložil predlog za dopustitev revizije (laično naslovljen kot "Prošnja za obravnavo sklepa Okrajnega sodišča v Celju P 57/2015") in njegovo dopolnitev z dne 28. 2. 2017.

2. Predlog ni dovoljen.

3. Pravnomočno sodno odločbo sodišča druge stopnje je mogoče izpodbijati le z izrednimi pravnimi sredstvi. V postopku z izrednimi pravnimi sredstvi pa lahko stranka opravlja pravdna dejanja samo po pooblaščencu, ki je odvetnik (tretji odstavek 86. člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku, v nadaljevanju ZPP). Izjemoma sme ta pravdna dejanja v takšnem postopku opravljati stranka sama ali njen zakoniti zastopnik v primerih, če imata opravljen pravniški državni izpit (četrti odstavek 86. člena ZPP). Predlagatelj, ki je sam vložil predlog, v njem ni zatrjeval, da ima opravljen pravniški državni izpit. Ker je torej vložil predlog sam in ker po zakonu nima te pravice spričo pomanjkanja postulacijske sposobnosti (gre za neodpravljivo procesno pomanjkljivost), je njegov predlog nedovoljen na podlagi drugega odstavka 374. člena ZPP. Zato ga je Vrhovno sodišče zavrglo.