Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Sklep VIII Ips 89/98 ECLI:SI:VSRS:1998:VIII.IPS.89.98 AI generated

Appeal against jurisdictional ruling dismissed as procedural step not final for review purposes.

Case Number Sklep VIII Ips 89/98
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court rejected the appeal filed against a second-instance court's decision to vacate the first-instance judgment and declare the labor court incompetent. The appellant argued that the dispute concerned housing under the Internal Affairs Act rather than the Housing Act, thus requiring labor court jurisdiction. The court held that since the appeal decision only addressed jurisdiction and did not resolve the main matter, the proceedings were not legally concluded, making the appeal inadmissible under the Code of Civil Procedure.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 400 of the Code of Civil Procedure; Article 392 of the Code of Civil Procedure: An appeal is inadmissible against a second-instance court's decision solely determining jurisdiction if the proceedings remain open and the main issue is not yet adjudicated.

Keywords

AI generated
jurisdictional ruling appeal inadmissibility procedural finality labor court competence housing dispute Code of Civil Procedure review court

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 400 of the Code of Civil Procedure
Article 392 of the Code of Civil Procedure
Article 1, Paragraph 4 of the Constitutional Act on the Implementation of the Fundamental Constitutional Charter on the Independence and Autonomy of the Republic of Slovenia
AI generated
VSL sklep I Cp 237/2017
Labor court has jurisdiction over tort claims where physical persons are co-defendants alongside an insurer.
VSM sklep Cpg 239/94
Appeal allowed; labor court jurisdiction established for disputes pending before unified courts before new law.
VDSS sklep Pdp 785/2013
Labor court dismissed appeal; appointment of public institution director by municipal council requires administrative court jurisdiction.
VDSS sklep Pdp 491/2012
Labor court lacks jurisdiction if employee worked for different employer during dispute period.
Sklep VIII R 23/2010
Supreme Court rules labor court has jurisdiction over unpaid wages claims from fixed-term employment contracts.

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

Revizija se zavrže kot nedovoljena.

[JEDRO]

Revizija ni dovoljena zoper sklep drugostopenjskega sodišča, s katerim je razveljavilo prvostopno sodbo, in odločilo, da delovno sodišče ni stvarno pristojno za spor.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Višje delovno in socialno sodišče je s sklepom ugodilo pritožbi tožene stranke in razveljavilo prvostopno sodbo ter 3. točko sklepa glede povračila stroškov postopka in zadevo odstopilo v reševanje Okrajnemu sodišču. Sodišče ugotavlja, da gre za stanovanjski spor, za katerega delovno sodišče ni pristojno.

Zoper navedeni sklep je tožnik vložil revizijo, v kateri uveljavlja bistveno kršitev določb pravdnega postopka in zmotno uporabo materialnega prava. Navaja, da stanovanja ne zahteva po Stanovanjskem zakonu (Uradni list RS, št. 18/91) ampak po Zakonu o notranjih zadevah, torej iz delovnega razmerja, zato je za odločanje podana pristojnost delovnega sodišča.

Revizija ni dovoljena.

Revizija je izredno pravno sredstvo, zato zakon točno določa, kdaj in zaradi katerih razlogov jo je dovoljeno vložiti. Po določbi 400.

člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku (Uradni list SFRJ, št. 4/77 -

27/90), se revizija lahko vloži zoper sklep sodišča druge stopnje, s katerim je bil postopek pravnomočno končan, s tem, da revizije ni v sporih, v katerih ne bi bila dovoljena revizija zoper pravnomočno sodbo. Z izpodbijanim sklepom postopek ni bil pravnomočno končan, ker se z njim ni odločalo o glavni stvari ampak o pristojnosti. Postopek se bo nadaljeval pred sodiščem, kateremu je bila zadeva odstopljena.

Glede na obrazloženo je revizijsko sodišče na podlagi 392. člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku revizijo zavrglo kot nedovoljeno.

Določbe Zakona o pravdnem postopku je revizijsko sodišče smiselno uporabilo kot določbe predpisa Republike Slovenije, skladno s 1.

odstavkom 4. člena Ustavnega zakona za izvedbo temeljne ustavne listine o samostojnosti in neodvisnosti Republike Slovenije (Uradni list RS, št. 1/91-I in 45/I/94).