Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Sklep II DoR 80/2008 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2009:II.DOR.80.2008 AI generated

Supreme Court rejects review application due to lack of procedural rights violation under ZPP Art. 12.

Case Number Sklep II DoR 80/2008
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 the applicant's request for permission to appeal, upholding the lower court's decision on property usage rights. The applicant argued that the first-instance court violated her procedural rights by failing to inform her of the opportunity to submit and supplement evidence, specifically regarding witness testimonies. The court determined that the conditions for granting a review under Article 367.a of the Civil Procedure Act were not met, leading to the dismissal of the application.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 367.a, Paragraph 1 of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 367.c of the Civil Procedure Act: A review application is inadmissible if the applicant fails to demonstrate that the first-instance court violated their right to present and supplement evidence.

Keywords

AI generated
review application Civil Procedure Act procedural rights supplementing evidence witness testimony dismissal of appeal first instance court

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 367.a, Paragraph 1 of the Civil Procedure Act
Article 367.c of the Civil Procedure Act
Article 12 of the Civil Procedure Act
AI generated
VSL sklep I Cp 2377/2016
Sodišče prve stopnje je ugotovilo, da sta tožnika pridobila služnostno pravico pešpoti in voženj z vsemi prevoznimi sredstvi za potrebe dostopa in izkoriščanja gozdnih zemljišč v breme služeče nepremičnine parc. št. 257/3, k. o. X, ter v korist vsakokratnega lastnika parcel 257/5 in 257/6, k. o. X. Toženki je naložilo, da je dolžna tožnikoma povrniti njune pravdne stroške v višini 971,97 EUR.
Sklep II Ips 561/2004
Appeal rejected because claimant failed to state case value in original complaint as required by law.
Sklep II Ips 426/2009
Appeal dismissed because pre-ZPP-D judgment value falls below statutory appeal threshold limits.
Sklep II Ips 357/93
Slovenian Supreme Court dismisses appeal due to insufficient value threshold under Civil Procedure Act.
VSL Sodba I Cp 263/2020
Appeal partially allowed correcting a factual error in easement location and recalculating legal costs.

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

Predlog se zavrne.

[JEDRO]

Stranka je bila mnenja, da je bila kršena njena pravica, da jo sodišče pouči, da ponudi in dopolni dokazila.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Sodišče prve stopnje je razsodilo, da ne obstoji služnostna pravica hoje in vožnje v breme vsakokratnega lastnika nepremičnine parc. št. 1348 k.o. .... v korist vsakokratnega lastnika nepremičnine parc. št. 1347 k.o. ... Odločilo je še o pravdnih stroških.

2. Sodišče druge stopnje je zavrnilo pritožbo tožene stranke in potrdilo sodbo sodišča prve stopnje.

3. Zoper sodbo sodišča druge stopnje je tožena stranka na podlagi 367.b člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku (ZPP) vložila predlog za dopustitev revizije, v katerem uveljavlja kršitev 12. člena ZPP in graja pomanjkljivo materialno procesno vodstvo, ker je v prvem sojenju ni zastopal odvetnik niti ni bila poučena, da lahko predlaga dokaze z zaslišanjem prič oziroma je sodišče ni spodbudilo, da ponudi in dopolni dokazila, ki se nanašajo na njene navedbe.

4. Ker niso podani pogoji za dopustitev revizije iz prvega odstavka 367.a člena ZPP, je Vrhovno sodišče predlog zavrnilo (367.c člen ZPP).