Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
sklep U 2445/2007 ECLI:SI:UPRS:2008:U.2445.2007 AI generated

Appeal dismissed because court did not independently find different facts to alter the administrative act.

Case Number sklep U 2445/2007
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Administrative Court of the Republic of Slovenia dismissed the appellant's appeal against a first-instance judgment. The appellant argued for a review of the case, but the court found that the appeal was inadmissible under Article 73(1) of the Administrative Dispute Act. The court ruled that an appeal is only permitted if the court independently ascertained different facts than the defendant or applied Article 66 of the Act, neither of which occurred here. Consequently, the appeal was rejected as it failed to meet the strict statutory requirements for admissibility.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 73(1) of the Administrative Dispute Act; An appeal against a court judgment is admissible only if the court independently ascertained different facts than the defendant or applied Article 66 of the Act, otherwise the appeal is inadmissible.

Keywords

AI generated
administrative dispute act admissibility of appeal independent fact finding court judgment review statutory conditions appeal

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 73(1) of the Administrative Dispute Act
Article 63(1) of the Administrative Dispute Act
Article 66 of the Administrative Dispute Act
Article 343(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure
Article 22(1) of the Administrative Dispute Act
AI generated
VDSS Sklep Psp 109/2017
Appeal dismissed; social protection case fees waived by law, no need for separate fee exemption ruling.
Sklep I Up 157/99
Appeal allowed; first instance court violated due process by ignoring valid power of attorney and failing to notify the client directly.
VSL sklep I Cpg 162/2010
Appeal dismissed; tax exemption application rejected due to failure to substantiate financial hardship under ZST. Appeal dismissed; tax exemption application rejected due to failure to substantiate financial hardship under ZST.
VSRS Sklep I Up 52/2015
Supreme Court allows appeal and quashes first-instance order stopping proceedings due to alleged late court fee payment.
VSL sklep II Cp 2458/2015
Appeal allowed; court reversed first instance ruling on court fee liability between partially exempted parties.

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 zavrže.

[JEDRO]

Po določbi 1. odstavka 73. člena ZUS-1 je dovoljena pritožba le v primeru, če je sodišče samo ugotovilo drugačno dejansko stanje, kot ga je ugotovila tožena stranka, ter na tej podlagi spremenilo izpodbijani upravni akt ali če je sodišče odločilo na podlagi 66. člena tega zakona.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Sodišče je s sodbo (1. točka izreka) na podlagi 1. odstavka 63. člena Zakona o upravnem sporu (ZUS-1; Uradni list RS, št. 105/06) tožbo tožnika zavrnilo in ga (2. točka izreka) oprostilo plačila sodnih taks. S pravnim poukom je sodišče tožnika poučilo, da na podlagi 1. odstavka 73. člena ZUS-1 zoper to sodbo pritožba ni dovoljena.

Tožnik je zoper sodbo sodišča prve stopnje dne 29. 1. 2008 vložil pritožbo. Pogoji, ki morajo biti izpolnjeni, da je dopustno vložiti pritožbo zoper sodbo so določeni v 1. odstavku 73. člena ZUS-1. Po tej zakonski določbi je dovoljena pritožba le v primeru, če je sodišče samo ugotovilo drugačno dejansko stanje, kot ga je ugotovila tožena stranka ter na tej podlagi spremenilo izpodbijani upravni akt ali če je sodišče odločilo na podlagi 66. člena tega zakona. Ker sodišče v obravnavanem primeru ni samo ugotavljalo dejanskega stanja oziroma ni ugotovilo drugačnega dejanskega stanja kot tožena stranka, pritožba, glede na določbo 1. odstavka 73. člena ZUS-1, ni dovoljena.

Sodišče je glede na navedeno pritožbo tožnika na podlagi 1. odstavka 343. člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku v zvezi 1. odstavkom 22. člena ZUS-1 kot nedovoljeno zavrglo.