Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Sklep III Ips 227/2008 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2009:III.IPS.227.2008 AI generated

Supreme Court dismisses revision against a second-instance decision remanding a case for retrial.

Case Number Sklep III Ips 227/2008
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 a revision filed against a second-instance decision that granted a complaint, vacated a first-instance judgment, and remanded the case for a new trial. The applicant argued for review of this procedural outcome, but the court held that revision is only permissible against legally binding final judgments or decisions concluding the proceedings. Since the remanded decision did not legally conclude the proceedings, the court dismissed the revision under Article 377 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 367, Paragraph 1; Article 384, Paragraph 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure; Revision is an extraordinary remedy limited to challenging final judgments or decisions concluding the proceedings, and therefore inadmissible against a decision remanding a case for retrial.

Keywords

AI generated
Code of Civil Procedure revision inadmissibility remand for retrial procedural conclusion second instance decision

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 130, Paragraph 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure
Article 367, Paragraph 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure
Article 384, Paragraph 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure
Article 377 of the Code of Civil Procedure
AI generated
Sklep III Ips 126/2008
Supreme Court rejects appeal where separate road crossing claims each fall below the €20,864.63 threshold.
Sklep III Ips 41/2009
Appeal dismissed because the disputed amount did not exceed the statutory threshold for appellate review in commercial cases.
Sklep III Ips 116/2007
Appeal dismissed because defendant company was deleted from register with no legal successors, violating procedural standing requirements.
Sklep III Ips 154/2009
Appeal dismissed for lack of signature; court rejected incomplete appeal without supplementation procedure. Appeal dismissed due to missing signature; court refused supplementation per statutory rule. Appeal dismissed for lack of signature; court applied statutory rule without supplementation. Appeal dismissed for missing signature; court refused supplementation per statutory provision.
Sodba III Ips 236/2008
Revocation of a board resolution due to flawed quorum does not automatically imply the opposite resolution was adopted.

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.

Odločitev o revizijskih stroških se pridrži za končno odločbo.

[JEDRO]

Revizija ni dovoljena zoper sklep, s katerim je sodišče druge stopnje ugodilo pritožbi, razveljavilo sodbo sodišča prve stopnje in zadevo vrnilo sodišču prve stopnje v novo sojenje.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Obravnavani postopek se je pred sodiščem prve stopnje končal pred uveljavitvijo Zakona o spremembah in dopolnitvah Zakona o pravdnem postopku - ZPP-D (Uradni list RS, št. 45/2008). Zato se po drugem odstavku njegovega 130. člena nadaljuje po dosedanjih določbah Zakona o pravdnem postopku (ZPP, Uradni list RS, št. 73/2007 - uradno prečiščeno besedilo).

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

3. Tožena stranka je vložila revizijo zoper sklep, s katerim je sodišče druge stopnje ugodilo njeni pritožbi, v celoti razveljavilo sodbo sodišča prve stopnje in zadevo vrnilo sodišču prve stopnje v novo sojenje. Ker ne gre za sklep, s katerim bi bil postopek pravnomočno končan, revizija zoper njega ni dovoljena. Vrhovno sodišče jo je zavrglo na podlagi 377. člena ZPP, ker tega v mejah svojih pravic ni storilo že sodišče prve stopnje.

4. Odločitev o stroških revizijskega postopka je Vrhovno sodišče pridržalo za končno odločbo v zadevi.