Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSRS Sklep II DoR 287/2019 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2019:II.DOR.287.2019 AI generated

Appeal against property possession disturbance is final; Supreme Court rejects review request due to statutory prohibition.

Case Number VSRS Sklep II DoR 287/2019
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 defendant's request to allow a review of the first-instance judgment. The lower courts ruled that the plaintiff's property possession was disturbed and ordered the defendant to refrain from such actions. The court denied the review request because the Law on Civil Procedure explicitly prohibits appeals in possession disturbance cases.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

ZPP 428. odst. 4; ZPP 367. odst. 2: In cases of compensation for disturbance of possession, review proceedings are statutorily prohibited, and a request to allow such review must be dismissed.

Keywords

AI generated
disturbance of possession review proceedings prohibition civil procedure law finality of judgment property rights protection

Cited Legislation

AI generated
ZPP 428. odst. 4
ZPP 367. odst. 2
AI generated
VSL sklep I Cp 3462/2009
Appeal allowed; court ruled 15-day preparation period must be calculated excluding the service date under ZPP rules.
VSL Sklep I Cp 260/2024
Appeal dismissed; possession protection depends on factual control, not legal title or ownership rights.
VSL sklep I Cp 525/97
Appeal allowed; possession on farmland requires specific timing analysis, not continuous daily acts.
VSL sklep I Cp 86/2010
Appeal dismissed; agrarian group member personally liable for trespass despite group's lack of legal personality.
VSL sklep I Cp 1422/94
Appeal dismissed because late written explanation for expedited appeal was not considered as appeal was complete.

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 v pravdi zaradi motenja posesti po četrtem odstavku 428. člena ZPP revizije ni, je tudi ni mogoče dopustiti.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Sodišče prve stopnje je sklenilo, da se tožencu v bodoče prepoveduje s košnjo, odstranjevanjem trave ali podobnimi motilnimi dejanji motiti posest, ki jo ima tožnik na osrednjem in južnem delu parcele 3111 k.o. 2612 – Sveti Anton, kot izhaja iz vrisanega GERK-a. Odločilo je tudi o stroških postopka.

2. Sodišče druge stopnje je zavrnilo pritožbo toženca in potrdilo sklep sodišča prve stopnje. Odločilo je tudi o pritožbenih stroških.

3. Zoper sklep sodišča druge stopnje je toženec vložil predlog za dopustitev revizije glede petih vprašanj, katerih pomembnost utemeljuje z zagotovitvijo pravne varnosti in enotne uporabe prava in njegovega razvoja preko sodne prakse.

4. Predlog ni dovoljen.

5. V predmetni zadevi gre za pravdo zaradi motenja posesti. Zakon o pravdnem postopku (v nadaljevanju ZPP) v četrtem odstavku 428. člena določa, da zoper sklep, izdan v pravdi zaradi motenja posesti, revizije ni. Če zakon določa, da revizije ni, sodišče revizije ne more dopustiti (drugi odstavek 367. člena ZPP). Vrhovno sodišče je zato nedovoljen predlog za dopustitev revizije na podlagi 377. člena v zvezi s četrtim odstavkom 428. člena ZPP zavrglo.