Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSRS Sklep II DoR 101/2018 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2018:II.DOR.101.2018 AI generated

Supreme Court dismisses review application as statutory conditions for admissibility were not met.

Case Number VSRS Sklep II DoR 101/2018
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 against a final judgment confirming a court settlement. The applicant argued that the municipality was not a signatory because its representative was absent, claiming this violated constitutional rights and caused a situation similar to a mistaken identity. The court found the review application inadmissible because the specific conditions required by law for granting a review were not satisfied.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

367.a odst. 1 ZPP; 367.c odst. 2 ZPP: A review application is inadmissible if the statutory conditions for its admissibility are not met, regardless of the substantive arguments regarding procedural violations or rights infringements.

Keywords

AI generated
review application admissibility court settlement confirmation procedural violation threshold municipal representation absence constitutional rights claim

Cited Legislation

AI generated
367.a odst. 1 ZPP
367.c odst. 2 ZPP
AI generated
VSL sodba Cpg 701/93
Appeal dismissed; ratification of unauthorized agent's contract via lawsuit filing constitutes implied consent under ZOR.
VDSS Sodba Pdp 306/2019
Appeal dismissed; court held labor arbitration proceedings cannot review the legality of the underlying dismissal.
VSL sklep II Cp 307/2015
Appeal allowed; court jurisdiction depends on prior arbitral boundary determination between Slovenia and Croatia.
VSL sklep II Cp 3632/2012
Appeal against court settlement dismissed; review only applies to final judgments, not settlements under ZPP Art. 367.
VSC Sklep Cp 17/2021
Appeal court overturns first instance rejection of annulment appeal, mandating full application of ZPP Art. 108.

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 iz 367.a člena ZPP za dopustitev revizije niso izpolnjeni.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Sodišče prve stopnje je zavrnilo tožbeni zahtevek na razveljavitev sodne poravnave z opr. št. N 4/2015, sklenjene dne 7. 9. 2016 pri Okrajnem sodišču v Grosupljem.

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

3. Zoper sodbo sodišča druge stopnje je tožeča stranka vložila predlog za dopustitev revizije zaradi bistvenih kršitev pravdnega postopka in zmotne uporabe materialnega prava. Meni, da v konkretnem primeru občina ni bila podpisnica izpodbijane sodne poravnave, ker njen predstavnik ni bil prisoten na naroku. Drugačen zaključek je protispisen. Bila je prepričana, da se je sodna poravnava sklepala na podlagi katastrsko določene meje. Ni odgovorna, da je njen odvetnik prišel na narok prepozno in da ni slišal, kakšen dogovor so stranke sprejele. Njen odvetnik je bil zaveden. Nastala je razlastitvi podobna situacija. Kršene so ji bile ustavne pravice.

4. Predlog ni utemeljen.

5. Predpostavke za dopustitev revizije iz prvega odstavka 367.a člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku niso izpolnjene. Skladno z določbo drugega odstavka 367.c člena istega zakona je zato Vrhovno sodišče predlog zavrnilo.