Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
Sklep II DoR 37/2009 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2009:II.DOR.37.2009 Generato dall'IA

Supreme Court partially allows appeal regarding necessity of co-owners as necessary co-litigants in property dispute.

Numero d'incarto Sklep II DoR 37/2009
Autorità giudiziaria
Giurisdizione Slovenia (SI)
Data della decisione
Esito del giudizio Parzialmente accolto (Partially Allowed)
Apri la fonte ufficiale Versione Markdown leggibile dalle macchine (.md)

Sintesi Legislator

Generato dall'IA

The Supreme Court of Slovenia partially granted the petition to allow an appeal against the second-instance court's dismissal of the plaintiff's claims. The lower courts held that all co-owners of the disputed property were necessary co-litigants, rendering the plaintiff's suit against only one co-owner improper. The Court agreed with this view for the specific issue of co-ownership status but rejected the broader grounds for the appeal.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

Article 367a(1) of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 367a(2) of the Civil Procedure Act: An appeal is admissible only if the first-instance court's decision concerns a legal issue that is not settled by the law or is contrary to the law, and the appeal is based on a specific legal error.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
necessary co-litigants co-ownership dispute Civil Procedure Act appeal admissibility property rights presupposto processuale domanda collettiva mancata prova della solvibilità

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
Article 367a(1) of the Civil Procedure Act
Article 367a(2) of the Civil Procedure Act
Generato dall'IA
Sodba II Ips 556/98
Court rejects appeal claiming adverse possession rights override land registry entry when buyer knew of prior acquisition.
VSL Sklep II Cp 1005/2023
Appeal allowed: Court of Appeal overturns dismissal of co-ownership partition, ruling it not res judicata.
Sodba II Ips 51/2010
Future damage claims expire from the first ascertainable instance, interrupting prior claims only upon completion.
VSL Sodba II Cp 1249/2021
Appeal dismissed; co-owner must request permission to use property before claiming unjust enrichment usage fee.
Sodba II Ips 242/2000
Exclusion action dismissed because creditor's lien right is absolute and spouse failed to prove bad faith.

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

Predlogu se delno ugodi in se revizija dovoli glede vprašanja pravilnosti uporabe pravnega instituta nujnega sosporništva v kontekstu zavrnitve tožbenega zahtevka.

Sicer se predlog zavrne.

[JEDRO]

Revizija se dopusti – spornost stališča, da so vsi solastniki nepremičnine, na katero se nanašajo tožbeni zahtevki, nujni sosporniki in je zato tožeča stranka neutemeljeno tožila le enega od solastnikov.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. S sodbo sodišča druge stopnje je bila zavrnjena pritožba tožeče stranke zoper sodbo sodišča prve stopnje o zavrnitvi njenih zahtevkov proti tožencu. Stališče obeh nižjih sodišč je, da so vsi solastniki nepremičnine, na katero se nanašajo tožbeni zahtevki, nujni sosporniki in je zato tožeča stranka neutemeljeno tožila le enega od solastnikov.

2. Tožnika sta vložila predlog za dopustitev revizije zaradi zmotne uporabe materialnega prava in absolutne bistvene kršitve določb pravdnega postopka.

3. Predlog je delno utemeljen.

4. Pogoji za dopustitev revizije iz prvega odstavka 367 a člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku so podani glede pravnih vprašanj, ki jih opredeljuje prva točka izreka tega sklepa. Zato je Vrhovno sodišče v navedenem delu revizijo dopustilo, sicer pa predlog zavrnilo.