TFL Vsebine / Pravni letopis

Z novelo ZPP­E je pomembnost spornega pravnega vprašanja, razen nekaj izjem, postala edino merilo dovoljenosti revizije. Javna funkcija Vrhovnega sodišča se zagotavlja z omejenim in objektivno zasnovanim dostopom do njega, čemur je treba prilagoditi oblikovanje predloga za dopustitev revizije. V prispevku je prikazana sodna praksa v zvezi z zahtevo ZPP po obveznih sestavinah, ki jim mora imeti popoln predlog za dopustitev revizije. Pravni standard »pomembnega pravnega vprašanja« sodišče zapolnjuje v soodvisnosti od konkretnih okoliščin. Temeljno merilo je, da mora pomen zadeve segati prek konkretne zadeve. V nadaljevanju je obravnavan institut pritožbe zoper razveljavitveni sklep sodišča druge stopnje, katerega cilj je povečati število zadev, v katerih bo višje sodišče meritorno odločilo sámo. Prispevek se osredotoča na sodno prakso po uveljavitvi noveli ZPP­E, ki zapolnjuje pomensko odprtost standarda (ne)odpravljivosti kršitve na drugi stopnji tako glede procesnih kršitev kot glede kršitev v zvezi z dokaznim postopkom in ugotovljenim dejanskim stanjem.

With the ZPP­E amendments to the Civil Procedure Act, the importance of the disputed legal issue, with a few exceptions, became the sole criterion for the admissibility of the extraordinary legal remedy of a revision. The public function of the Supreme Court is ensured through a limited and objectively designed access to it, which must be taken into account when drafting a motion for leave to file a revision. The article presents the case law concerning the mandatory components of such a motion under the Civil Procedure Act. The legal standard of an ""important legal issue"" is defined by the court depending on the specific circumstances of the case. The basic criterion is that the significance of the matter must extend beyond the concrete matter. Also discussed is the institute of an appeal against the decision of the second instance court to remand the case for further proceedings, the aim of which is to increase the number of cases where the higher court itself decides on the merits of the case. The article focuses on the case law after the entry into force of the ZPP­E amendments, which closed the semantic openness of the (in)remediability of the violation at the second instance, both with regard to procedural violations as well as violations related to evidentiary procedure and the established facts of the case.

ZPP-E Amendments and Proceedings Before the Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia Abstract