Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
VSL sklep I Cpg 987/2000 ECLI:SI:VSLJ:2000:I.CPG.987.2000 Generato dall'IA

Appeal dismissed because plaintiff lacked right to appeal against appellate court's confirmation of first-instance dismissal.

Numero d'incarto VSL sklep I Cpg 987/2000
Autorità giudiziaria
Giurisdizione Slovenia (SI)
Data della decisione
Esito del giudizio Respinto (Dismissed)
Apri la fonte ufficiale Versione Markdown leggibile dalle macchine (.md)

Sintesi Legislator

Generato dall'IA

The appellate court dismissed the appeal filed by the defendant against the first-instance judgment. The defendant argued for the revocation of the appellate court's decision confirming the dismissal of their protest. The court ruled that the appellant had no legal standing to appeal the appellate court's confirmation of the first-instance decision regarding the withdrawal of the protest.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

363. člen ZPP; 384. člen ZPP: An appeal against a decision of the appellate court confirming a first-instance decision is inadmissible as the appellant lacks the right to appeal such a confirmation.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
procedural standing appellate confirmation inadmissible appeal withdrawal of protest ZPP provisions sviamento della giustizia motivo vertente sullo sviamento di potere inutilizzabilità delle prove illecite

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
363. člen Zakona o pravdnem postopku
384. člen Zakona o pravdnem postopku
490. člen Zakona o pravdnem postopku
Generato dall'IA
VSL sklep II Cpg 1072/99
Appeal dismissed; review against final enforcement judgment in execution proceedings is not permitted by law.
VSC Sklep I Cp 323/2021
Appeal against second-instance dismissal of appeal is rejected as only extraordinary remedies apply. Appeal against second-instance decision requires extraordinary remedies under ZPP. Appeal against second-instance decision is inadmissible as only extraordinary remedies apply. Appeal against second-instance decision is inadmissible; only extraordinary remedies apply under ZPP. Appeal against second-instance decision is inadmissible; only extraordinary remedies apply per ZPP. Appeal against second-instance decision is inadmissible; only extraordinary remedies apply. Appeal against second-instance decision is inadmissible; only extraordinary remedies apply. Appeal against second-instance decision is inadmissible; only extraordinary remedies apply. Appeal against second-instance decision is inadmissible; only extraordinary remedies apply. Appeal against second-instance decision is inadmissible; only extraordinary remedies apply.
VSC Sklep I Cp 216/2021
Appeal dismissed because the appeal against the first-instance court's dismissal of the appeal was itself inadmissible under ZPP.
VSL sklep V Cpg 1757/2014
Appeal against costs ruling within a final judgment dismissed as lacking statutory basis and legal interest.
Sklep I Up 744/2007
Supreme Court dismisses appeal against administrative court ruling as appeal against Supreme Court decision is inadmissible.

Ti chiedi come si applica questa sentenza alla tua fattispecie?

Analizza questa decisione insieme alla legislazione federale e cantonale, ai commentari e alla giurisprudenza successiva in Legislator AI.

Apri in Legislator →

Testo completo

Pritožba se zavrne in se potrdi sklep sodišča prve stopnje.

[JEDRO]

Pravilno je stališče sodišča prve stopnje, da pritožnik ni imel pravice do pritožbe proti sklepu pritožbenega sodišča, s katerim je potrdilo sklep prve stopnje o domnevi umika napovedi pritožbe (sklep opr. št. ... z dne ...; prim. 363. čl. Zakona o pravdnem postopku - v nadaljevanju ZPP).

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Sodišče prve stopnje je z izpodbijanim sklepom zavrglo "pritožbo" tožene stranke proti sklepu Višjega sodišča v Ljubljani opr. št. I ... z dne .... Proti temu sklepu vlaga pravočasno pritožbo tožena stranka. V pritožbi smiselno uveljavlja pritožbeni razlog kršitve določb ZPP. Pritožbenemu sodišču predlaga, naj izpodbijani sklep razveljavi. Pritožba ni utemeljena. Pravilno je stališče sodišča prve stopnje, da pritožnik ni imel pravice do pritožbe proti sklepu pritožbenega sodišča, s katerim je potrdilo sklep prve stopnje o domnevi umika napovedi pritožbe (sklep opr.

št. I ... z dne ...; prim. 363. čl. Zakona o pravdnem postopku - v nadaljevanju ZPP). Pa tudi, če bi vlogo pritožnika z dne 9.6.2000 šteli za revizijo, je izpodbijani sklep pravilen. Po 490. čl. ZPP je revizija v gospodarskem sporu dovoljena, če vrednost spornega predmeta presega znesek 5.000.000,00 SIT. In ker se v konkretnem primeru spor tiče zneska 323.659,50 SIT, revizija ni dovoljena (2. odst. 384. čl. ZPP). Glede na navedeno je pritožbeno sodišče pritožbo zavrnilo in potrdilo sklep sodišča prve stopnje, potem ko je ugotovilo, da tudi niso podani razlogi, na katere pazi po uradni dolžnosti (2. tč. 365.

čl. ZPP).