Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSRS Sklep III DoR 72/2017-8 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2017:III.DOR.72.2017.8 AI generated

Supreme Court dismisses appeal against rejection of appeal against jurisdiction clause due to lack of finality.

Case Number VSRS Sklep III DoR 72/2017-8
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 to permit an appeal against the second-instance court's decision denying the appeal against the jurisdiction clause. The applicant argued for review of the lower court's refusal to annul the jurisdiction clause, but the Supreme Court held that such a ruling does not conclude the proceedings. Consequently, the court ruled that an appeal is only permissible against decisions that legally terminate the proceedings, which this specific ruling did not do.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

384. odst. 1 ZPP; 377. in 384. odst. 4 ZPP: An appeal against a decision rejecting an appeal against a jurisdiction clause is inadmissible because such a decision does not legally conclude the proceedings and thus does not satisfy the prerequisite for filing an appeal under the Code of Civil Procedure.

Keywords

AI generated
appeal against jurisdiction clause finality of proceedings admissibility of appeal second instance court Code of Civil Procedure

Cited Legislation

AI generated
384. odst. 1 ZPP
377. člen ZPP
Zato v takih primerih tudi ni dovoljeno predlagati, da se revizija dopusti (377. člen ZPP v zvezi s četrtim odstavkom 384.
384. odst. 4 ZPP

Cited Case Law

AI generated
III Ips 163/2006
Supreme Court dismisses review against second-instance ruling where finality occurred earlier via default judgment expiration.
II Ips 276/2003
Appeal against a ruling to invalidate a jurisdiction clause is dismissed as the ruling does not end the proceedings. The court held that only rulings concluding the proceedings allow for an appeal. The court rejected the appeal because the ruling to invalidate the jurisdiction clause did not conclude the proceedings. The court ruled that appeals are only permitted against rulings that legally conclude the proceedings. The court determined that the ruling to invalidate the jurisdiction clause did not legally conclude the proceedings. The court found that the ruling to invalidate the jurisdiction clause did not legally conclude the proceedings.
II DoR 220/2012
Appeal against enforcement certificate revocation is inadmissible as it is not a final judgment under ZPP Art. 384(1).
II DoR 83/2013
Appeal against dismissal of request for retrial and time-barred appeal is not a final judgment allowing review.
AI generated
VSL sklep I Cpg 74/2014
Appeal dismissed; request to annul time-bar clause rejected due to proper service and prior res judicata decision.
VDSS sklep Pdp 987/2009
Appeal granted; invalid service to unqualified agent voids finality certificate and returns case.
VSL sklep II Cp 3130/2014
Appeal partially allowed; court voids first instance ruling on service of process due to lack of hearing.
VSM Sklep II Ip 308/2023
Appeal dismissed; revocation of enforceability certificate cannot challenge higher court's final judgment.
VSC Sklep II Kp 63118/2022
Appeal court voids first-instance ruling due to invalid service of judgment on an illiterate defendant.

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 sklep o zavrnitvi predloga za razveljavitev klavzule pravnomočnosti ne predstavlja sklepa, s katerim bi bil postopek pravnomočno končan, revizija zoper njega ni dovoljena.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Sodišče prve stopnje je zavrnilo predlog tožene stranke za razveljavitev klavzule o pravnomočnosti sodbe Okrožnega sodišča v Mariboru I Pg 144/2009 z dne 25. 3. 2009 (v nadaljevanju Sodba), zahtevo za vročitev Sodbe in pritožbo zoper Sodbo.

2. Sodišče druge stopnje je pritožbo tožene stranke zavrnilo in potrdilo sklep sodišča prve stopnje.

3. Zoper sklep sodišča druge stopnje je tožena stranka vložila predlog za dopustitev revizije.

4. Predlog ni dovoljen.

5. Po prvem odstavku 384. člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku (v nadaljevanju ZPP) lahko stranke vložijo revizijo zoper sklep sodišča druge stopnje, s katerim je bil postopek pravnomočno končan. Sklep, s katerimi je bilo pravnomočno odločeno o zavrnitvi predloga za razveljavitev klavzule pravnomočnosti, 1 ni sklep, s katerim bi se postopek pravnomočno končal v skladu s prvim odstavkom 384. člena ZPP. Zato v takih primerih tudi ni dovoljeno predlagati, da se revizija dopusti (377. člen ZPP v zvezi s četrtim odstavkom 384. člena ZPP).

1 Glej tudi sklepe Vrhovnega sodišča RS III Ips 163/2006 z dne 27. 3. 2007, II Ips 276/2003 z dne 15. 4. 2004, II DoR 220/2012 z dne 20. 9. 2012 ter II DoR 83/2013 z dne 21. 3. 2013.