Ruling:

The appeal is rejected.

Explanation:

Previous course of proceedings

1. On January 22, 2015, the plaintiff requested the court, through a lawsuit, to adjudicate that the defendant is obliged to pay him EUR 313,238.44 as compensation for the damage caused by the error of a notary (insured by the defendant). The notary allegedly prepared and notarized a contract on life support for the plaintiff, which was later invalidated by a judgment of the District Court in Ljubljana because it was not drawn up in the form of a notarial record. As a result, the property right that had already been registered in the plaintiff's name was deleted from the land register. The plaintiff claimed that the damage occurred on the date of the final judgment in the deletion lawsuit (July 9, 2014).

2. The court of first instance dismissed the plaintiff's claim. It stated that the plaintiff was already aware of the alleged damage with the finality of the judgment declaring the nullity of the contract on life support, namely on January 28, 2009. On that day (and not with the finality of the deletion judgment), the plaintiff could have known that he would lose the disputed real estate, and he claims this loss as damage in this proceeding. Due to the decision declaring the nullity of the contract, the plaintiff could not realistically expect the deletion lawsuit to turn in his favor. Both the subjective and objective limitation periods had already expired before the filing of the lawsuit.

3. The court of second instance dismissed the plaintiff's appeal and confirmed the contested decision. When the nullity of the contractual legal transaction was established, it should have become clear to the plaintiff that the real estate would be restored to the state before the conclusion of that transaction since the invalidity of registration Summary of revision submissionsand the decision to restore the previous land register status are merely a consequence of the finding of nullity.

4. Against the decision of the court of second instance, the plaintiff filed a revision on the grounds of erroneous application of substantive law and substantial violation of procedural provisions. He requests the revision court to modify the contested judgment in its entirety, granting full satisfaction to the plaintiff's claim and ordering the defendant to pay all litigation costs. Alternatively, he requests the annulment of both judgments and a referral of the case for a new trial before the court of first instance. According to the plaintiff, it was only with the judgment of January 9, 2014, that the District Court in Ljubljana decided to delete the property right registered in the plaintiff's name; and the decision was confirmed by the appellate court on July 9, 2014. It was then that the damage allegedly occurred. The plaintiff also challenges the decision that the contract on life support was not concluded in the correct form and reiterates that he suffered damage due to the notary's error.

5. The revision was served on the defendant, who responded and proposed its rejection.

Decision on revision

6. The revision is unfounded.

7. The revision court emphasizes at the outset that revision is an extraordinary legal remedy against a final second-instance judgment with a more limited scope and grounds for challenge compared to a regular appeal against a first-instance judgment. Since the revision court does not review ex officio substantial violations of procedural provisions (Article 370 of the Code of Civil Procedure), the plaintiff must specify and justify each allegation of procedural irregularities. The plaintiff did not specify which procedural violations he asserts and why; therefore, the revision court does not address the allegations of procedural irregularities.

8. Pursuant to the transitional provision of the third paragraph of Article 125 of the ZPP-E amendment, the proceedings initiated before the entry into force of the amendment continue before the court of second instance and the Supreme Court in accordance with the provisions of the amended law if the decision by which the proceedings before the court of first instance are concluded is issued after the entry into force of this law. The judgment of the court of first instance was issued before the amendment came into force on September 14, 2017, so the Supreme Court applied the provisions of the CCP as they were in force before the amendment.

9. In the revision, the plaintiff also reiterates his position that the limitation period started running from the finality of the decision in the deletion lawsuit and not from the final decision on the nullity of the contract on life support. However, this position is incorrect and has no basis in substantive law. The law provides that the limitation period starts running on the first day after the day on which the creditor had the right to demand performance of the obligation (Article 336 of the Obligations Code (OZ)), and the claim for compensation for damages caused by an act or omission expires within three years from the day the injured party became aware of the damage and the person who caused it (in any case, such a claim expires within five years).1 When the court finally decided that the contract on life support was null and void, the plaintiff lost his contractual entitlements vis-à-vis the other contracting party and had to return everything he received based on the null and void contract.2 It is precisely this loss that the plaintiff asserts as damage in the present proceeding. Therefore, this damage occurred to the plaintiff and should have been known to him at the time of the (final) determination of the nullity of the contract, thus justifying the commencement of the limitation period for the claim for compensation based on this.

10. The revision court has therefore determined that the alleged grounds for revision are not present, and thus the revision was rejected as unfounded (Article 378 of the CCP).

11. The decision that the plaintiff bears his own costs of the revision proceedings is based on the first paragraph of Article 165 of the CCP and the first paragraph of Article 154 of the CCP, and is covered by the pronouncement rejecting the revision.

-------------------------------
1 First and second paragraph of Article 352 of the OZ.
2 First paragraph of Article 87 of the OZ.

References:

- Constitution, Laws, Agreements, Contracts
- Obligacijski zakonik (2001) - OZ - Article 87, 87/1, 336, 352, 352/1, 352/2