Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Sklep III Ips 162/2007 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2008:III.IPS.162.2007 AI generated

Appeal against a ruling on litigation costs is dismissed because the procedure was already final. The court held that the appeal was inadmissible as the proceedings were concluded by settlement.

Case Number Sklep III Ips 162/2007
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 dismissed the appeal filed by a third-party intervenent against a ruling on litigation costs. The intervenent argued for a review of the cost allocation following a settlement agreement. The court rejected this because the proceedings were already legally final due to the settlement, making an appeal under the Code of Civil Procedure inadmissible.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Zakon o pravdnem postopku (ZPP), prvi odstavek 367. člena; prvi odstavek 384. člena: An appeal against a ruling on litigation costs is inadmissible if the proceedings were already concluded by a settlement, as such a ruling does not end the proceedings with finality.

Keywords

AI generated
litigation costs third party intervenent settlement agreement finality of proceedings inadmissible appeal Code of Civil Procedure supreme court review

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Zakon o pravdnem postopku (ZPP), prvi odstavek 367. člena
Zakon o pravdnem postopku (ZPP), prvi odstavek 384. člena
Zakon o pravdnem postopku (ZPP), 377. člen
Zakon o pravdnem postopku (ZPP), prvi odstavek 165. člena
Zakon o pravdnem postopku (ZPP), prvi odstavek 154. člena
AI generated
Sklep X Ips 40/2010
Supreme Court dismisses appeal and interim order request as statutory law already answers the legal issue.
Sklep III Ips 190/2007
Supreme Court dismisses appeal due to lack of legal standing when non-lawyer files appeal personally.
VSRS Sklep X Ips 474/2014
Supreme Court dismisses appeal as applicant failed to prove severe consequences or specific legal errors under administrative review rules.
VSL Sklep II Cpg 642/2021
Request for supplementary costs order dismissed because the appeal response was filed late and rejected by the court.
Sodba III Ips 21/93
Appeal dismissed; court held lack of translation is only a relative essential procedural violation if it affects judgment legality.

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.

Stranska intervenientka sama krije svoje stroške revizijskega postopka.

[JEDRO]

Sklep o pravdnih stroških ni sklep, s katerim bi bil postopek pravnomočno končan, zato revizija proti njemu ni dovoljena.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

(1) Revizija je izredno pravno sredstvo, s katerim se lahko izpodbija pravnomočna sodba, izdana na drugi stopnji (prvi odstavek 367. člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku - ZPP), in sklep sodišča druge stopnje, s katerim je bil postopek pravnomočno končan (prvi odstavek 384. člena ZPP).

(2) Stranska intervenientka na strani tožene stranke je vložila revizijo proti sklepu sodišča druge stopnje, s katerim je bil potrjen sklep sodišča prve stopnje o njenih pravdnih stroških. Ker ne gre za sklep, s katerim bi bil postopek pravnomočno končan (končan je bil s sklenitvijo sodne poravnave), revizija proti njemu ni dovoljena. Vrhovno sodišče jo je zato zavrglo na podlagi 377. člena ZPP, ker tega v mejah svojih pravic ni storilo že sodišče prve stopnje.

(3) Na podlagi prvega odstavka 165. člena ZPP je Vrhovno sodišče odločilo o stroških revizijskega postopka. Stranska intervenientka z revizijo ni uspela, zaradi česar po določbi prvega odstavka 154. člena ZPP sama krije svoje stroške.