Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSM sklep Cpg 279/95 ECLI:SI:VSMB:1996:CPG.279.95 AI generated

Appeal against company register entry dismissed; only annulment action under Art. 41 of Register Law available for invalid documents.

Case Number VSM sklep Cpg 279/95
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The court dismissed the appeal against the first-instance judgment regarding the entry of a new partner into the company register. The appellant signed the notarial record and agreement, yet claimed the entry was void due to false documents. The court ruled that such claims for invalidity cannot be successfully raised via appeal but require a separate annulment action under Article 41 of the Register Law.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 41 of the Register Law; Article 136 of the Civil Procedure Act; A party cannot successfully challenge the validity of a company register entry via appeal if they signed the underlying notarial record; such challenges must be pursued through a separate annulment action.

Keywords

AI generated
company register entry appeal admissibility annulment action notarial record validity partner registration

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 41 of the Register Law
Article 136 of the Civil Procedure Act
AI generated
VSM sklep Cpg 452/95
Appeal dismissed; majority vote valid per Company Law; shareholder agreement clause upheld.
VSL sklep IV Cpg 22/2001
Appeal dismissed because the filing subject failed to specify a concrete legal interest affected by the court's decision.
VSL sklep IV Cpg 11/2003
Appeal dismissed; court upheld registration court's rejection of minority partner's request to block share transfer registration.
VSK Sklep II Cpg 124/2018
Court dismisses appeal against company registration change following merger, ruling merger effects override procedural defects.
VSM sklep Cpg 193/95
Appeal allowed; court ruled registrar must verify formal and material compliance with company law before rejecting registration.

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

Pritožba se zavrne kot neutemeljena in se potrdi sklep sodišča prve stopnje.

[JEDRO]

Pritožnica bi lahko uveljavljala, da je vpis ničen zaradi lažnih in neveljavnih listin, le z tožbo po 41. členu zakona o sodnem registru. Takih okoliščin neveljavnosti vpisa ni mogoče uspešno uveljavljati z pritožbo.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Družbenica A.A. se je pravočasno pritožila zoper tisti del sklepa o vpisu sprememb v sodni register, ki se nanaša na vpis nadaljnega družbenika B.B. kot direktorja in pooblaščenca.

Pritožba ni utemeljena.

Sodišče prve stopnje je vpisalo poleg ostalih sprememb tudi B.B. kot direktorja na podlagi notarskega zapisa, ki ga je dne 31.5.1994 po pooblastilu iz 587. člena ZGD sestavila odvetnica. Iz tega zapisa, ki ga je podpisala tudi pritožnica, izhaja, da sta se oba družbenika tako dogovorila na skupščini dne 31.5.1994. Predlogu za vpis sprememb je priložena tudi pogodba z izstopajočima družbenikoma (C.C. in D.D.), ki jo je prav tako podpisala pritožnica in podpisniki pogodbe ugotavljajo, da so na skupščini družbenikov dne 31.5.1995 dogovorili navedeni izstop. Sodišče prve stopnje je torej imelo podlago za vpis v sodni register.

Pritožnica bi lahko uveljavljala, da je vpis ničen zaradi lažnih in neveljavnih listin, le z tožbo po 41. členu zakona o sodnem registru.

Takih okoliščin neveljavnosti vpisa ni mogoče uspešno uveljavljati z pritožbo.