Introduction

On February 25, 2025, the Higher Court in Maribor (I Cp 597/2024) dismissed the appellant’s appeal and upheld the decision of the first-instance court, which rejected her proposal for regulating the use of co-owned property. The appellant suggested that the property be used alternately in weekly intervals, but the court found that such an arrangement was not feasible and that the issue of usage could only be resolved through the division of co-ownership.

Proceedings and Position of the First-Instance Court

On October 19, 2023, the appellant submitted a proposal to regulate the use of the property, which is co-owned by both parties in equal shares. She suggested alternating weekly usage. The first-instance court rejected her proposal, concluding that such an arrangement was not feasible given the relationship between the parties and the nature of the property. The court also determined that the only viable solution was the division of the property or a civil lawsuit to determine compensation for usage.

Appellant’s Appeal

The appellant appealed against the decision of the first-instance court, arguing that it had misapplied substantive law and committed significant procedural violations. She cited Article 149 of the Non-Contentious Civil Procedure Act (ZNP-1), which states that the court must regulate the relationship between co-owners if they cannot agree on the method of management and use. She maintained that the first-instance court should have substantively regulated the use of the property, even if her proposal was not entirely appropriate. She also claimed that the opposing party was preventing her from enjoying her ownership rights and that she was entitled to a resolution of her housing situation.

Decision of the Higher Court in Maribor

The Higher Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the first-instance court’s ruling. According to the court, the appellant misunderstood the nature of non-contentious proceedings, as the court is not obligated to accept every proposal but must assess whether the proposed method of use is feasible. The court found that the disputed property is a single-family house that cannot be physically divided and that, due to the conflicting relationship between the co-owners, shared use was not possible. It also concluded that expecting the opposing party to vacate the house every other week was unreasonable.

The Higher Court also dismissed the appellant’s argument that the first-instance court should have exercised procedural guidance and directed her towards a different proposal. In the court’s view, the appellant had the opportunity to propose alternative methods of use but insisted on an alternating arrangement, which was not feasible in this case. The Higher Court therefore agreed with the first-instance court’s decision that the appellant should seek a resolution through a division of the co-ownership or a lawsuit for compensation for use.

Conclusion

The ruling of the Higher Court in Maribor reaffirms the judicial stance that the regulation of the use of co-owned property must be practical and consistent with the circumstances of the case. If co-owners cannot coexist, the court cannot enforce shared use if it is unfeasible. The key takeaway from this decision is that co-owners who cannot agree on property use must enforce their rights through division proceedings or a compensation claim in a civil lawsuit.

* Finding yourself in need of legal services in Slovenia and looking for a law firm in Ljubljana, consider contacting us using our contact details as published on our web page. A qualified law firm can provide you with legal advice and representation – helping you navigate the complexities of Slovenian law and ensuring that your rights are protected. You can find more information on legal acts in Slovenia on the official pages of the Slovenian government. More legal topics can be found on our law firm publications page.