In case I Up 253\/2024 dated 25 February 2025, the Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia ruled on an appeal against a decision of the Administrative Court, which had dismissed the plaintiff\u2019s administrative lawsuit for lack of legal interest. The dispute arose from an administrative procedure before the Administrative Unit Nova Gorica, in which a legal transaction concerning agricultural land was approved between A. A. (buyer) and B. B. (seller), while the identical transaction between B. B. and the plaintiff was rejected.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Administrative Court dismissed the lawsuit based on point 6 of the first paragraph of Article 36 of the Administrative Dispute Act (ZUS-1), reasoning that at the time of its decision, the seller was no longer the registered owner of the land. According to the court, the property had already been transferred via a contract of life annuity to C. C. back in 2014, and that contract had been approved by a final administrative decision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Administrative Court held that the plaintiff lacked legal interest because the seller was no longer the owner of the land in question. It emphasized that the contract of life annuity had never been challenged, nor was any legal remedy filed against the 2014 administrative decision approving that contract. As a result, the court concluded that none of the original offer recipients, including the plaintiff, could acquire ownership of the land. Since the plaintiff did not allege any future change in the land register that might reinstate B. B. or his heirs as owners, the court ruled that setting aside the challenged decision would offer the plaintiff no legal benefit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The plaintiff (hereinafter the appellant) filed an appeal on all available grounds, arguing that legal interest did exist. He pointed out that the validity of the contract concluded with the seller gave rise to legal claims, including potential real property protection through a claim for deletion from the land register. He further argued that the court had erroneously stated that he did not claim the contract of life annuity to be null and void. The appellant requested that the Supreme Court grant the appeal, annul the contested decision, and uphold the lawsuit, or alternatively, annul the decision and remand the case for a new trial. He also requested reimbursement of legal costs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The appeal was upheld.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
According to point 6 of the first paragraph of Article 36 ZUS-1, a court shall dismiss an action if the challenged administrative act clearly does not affect the plaintiff\u2019s right or direct legal interest. However, as per established case law of the Supreme Court, legal interest exists where the potential success of the lawsuit would improve the plaintiff\u2019s legal position\u2014i.e., the position decided upon by the challenged administrative act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This means that legal interest must be assessed in the context of each specific case. From a procedural standpoint, it is sufficient if success in the lawsuit would result in the annulment of a negative decision, thus placing the plaintiff in a better legal position than if the decision remained in force. In such circumstances, the continuation of the administrative procedure following a court decision to annul the act constitutes a sufficient legal benefit to justify a hearing on the merits. This is distinct from the question of success in the repeated procedure, which is a matter for the administrative authority and not decisive in assessing legal interest in the judicial phase.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In the case at hand, the appellant filed a lawsuit against a decision that approved the legal transaction with another party but rejected his identical request. If the decision were annulled, the administrative authority would have to re-examine the appellant\u2019s request. This opportunity to pursue the fulfillment of the suspensive condition for the validity of his contract constitutes sufficient legal interest to allow for a substantive decision in court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Since legal interest could be established on this basis alone, the Supreme Court did not consider the remaining appeal arguments. It found that the lower court had erred in law by concluding that legal interest was lacking, thereby misapplying point 6 of Article 36(1) ZUS-1. This constituted a material procedural violation under Article 75(2) ZUS-1. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted the appeal, annulled the contested decision, and remanded the case for a new trial, instructing the first-instance court to re-examine procedural prerequisites in accordance with the reasoning of this judgment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This ruling once again confirms the Supreme Court\u2019s broad interpretation of legal interest in administrative disputes. It reinforces the principle that a plaintiff\u2019s legal standing should not be denied solely because the ultimate success in the renewed administrative procedure is uncertain.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The decision is especially relevant in cases where multiple competing transactions concern the same real estate. Legal practitioners should take note: the potential to improve a client\u2019s legal position\u2014by annulling a negative administrative act\u2014is generally sufficient to justify a lawsuit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
With this decision, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the importance of access to judicial protection and clarified that legal interest should be assessed based on the plaintiff\u2019s potential to improve their legal standing through annulment\u2014not on the likelihood of eventual administrative success. For legal representatives, this highlights the importance of distinguishing between procedural admissibility and substantive success when evaluating whether to pursue judicial review in administrative disputes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
* 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\u00a0web page<\/a>. A qualified law firm can provide you with legal advice and representation \u2013 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\u00a0official pages of the Slovenian\u00a0<\/a>government<\/a>. More legal topics can be found on our law firm\u00a0publications page<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" In case I Up 253\/2024 dated 25 February 2025, the Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia ruled on an appeal against a decision of the Administrative Court, which had dismissed the plaintiff\u2019s administrative lawsuit for lack of legal interest. The dispute arose from an administrative procedure before the Administrative Unit Nova Gorica, in which […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[12,114,117,139,45,142,116,119,113,115,191],"class_list":["post-878","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-immigration-lawyer","tag-law-firm-in-slovenia","tag-law-firm-ljubljana","tag-law-firm-slovenia","tag-lawyer-in-slovenia","tag-lawyer-slovenia","tag-legal-services-slovenia","tag-slovenian-civil-law-firm","tag-slovenian-law-firm","tag-slovenian-lawyer","tag-supreme-court"],"aioseo_notices":[],"featured_image_src":{"landsacpe":false,"list":false,"medium":false,"full":false},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.odb.si\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/878","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.odb.si\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.odb.si\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.odb.si\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.odb.si\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=878"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.odb.si\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/878\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":879,"href":"https:\/\/www.odb.si\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/878\/revisions\/879"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.odb.si\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=878"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.odb.si\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=878"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.odb.si\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=878"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}