Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Sklep II Ips 365/2008 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2009:II.IPS.365.2008 AI generated

Supreme Court dismisses appeal as time-barred because it was filed after the statutory thirty-day deadline expired.

Case Number Sklep II Ips 365/2008
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 dismissed the applicant's appeal, ruling it time-barred under Article 377 of the Civil Procedure Act. Although the first-instance court partially awarded damages and the appellate court rejected the complaint against the remainder, the applicant filed the appeal on February 18, 2008, after the thirty-day deadline had expired on February 15, 2008. The court rejected the appeal because the filing occurred outside the legally prescribed period, rendering the remedy inadmissible.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 377 of the Civil Procedure Act; An appeal filed after the expiration of the thirty-day period prescribed by law is inadmissible and must be dismissed.

Keywords

AI generated
time-barred appeal statutory deadline Civil Procedure Act inadmissible remedy procedural expiration

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 377 of the Civil Procedure Act
AI generated
Sodba III Ips 77/2011
Slovenian Supreme Court rejects appeal on warranty claim timing, ruling no statute of limitations applies to defense objections.
Sklep III DoR 62/2012
Supreme Court allows review to determine if lower courts ruled on a matter already finally decided.
Sklep X Ips 107/2009
Supreme Court dismisses appeal as withdrawn due to late tax payment not made on court account.
VSRS Sklep VIII Ips 10/2017
Supreme Court allows appeal when free legal aid decision names the lawyer, making a separate power of attorney unnecessary.
Sklep III DoR 24/2012
Supreme Court allows appeal on lease termination and unjust enrichment conditions in Slovenian civil procedure.

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 je prepozna in jo je Vrhovno sodišče zavrglo v skladu s 377. členom ZPP.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Revizija se zavrže.

OBRAZLOŽITEV:

1. Sodišče prve stopnje je s sodbo delno ugodilo tožbenemu zahtevku glede plačila 456.546 SIT (1.905,13 EUR) in pripadajočih zakonskih zamudnih obresti, v preostalem delu pa je bil zahtevek zavrnjen.

2. Pritožbeno sodišče je zavrnilo tožničino pritožbo proti zavrnilnemu delu prvostopenjske sodbe (glede zneska 6.232,07 EUR s pripadki).

3. Tožnica je vložila revizijo proti sodbi pritožbenega sodišča.

4. Revizija je bila dostavljena Vrhovnemu državnemu tožilstvu RS in vročena toženki, ta pa nanjo ni odgovorila.

5. Revizija je prepozna.

6. Zoper drugostopenjsko pravnomočno sodbo bi tožnica lahko vložila revizijo v tridesetih dneh od vročitve prepisa sodbe.(1) Tožnica je po svoji pooblaščenki prejela drugostopenjsko sodbo 16. januarja 2008 in vložila revizijo v ponedeljek, 18. februarja 2008 (takrat je pošti izročila priporočeno pošiljko). Zakonski rok za vložitev revizije je iztekel v petek, 15. februarja 2008. Zato je revizija prepozna in jo je Vrhovno sodišče zavrglo v skladu s 377. členom ZPP.

---.---

Op. št. (1): Primerjaj prvi odstavek 367. člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku – ZPP.