Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Sklep III DoR 113/2013 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2014:III.DOR.113.2013 AI generated

Supreme Court allows review on whether lower courts wrongly ignored a three-year statute of limitations for commercial contract claims.

Case Number Sklep III DoR 113/2013
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Partially Allowed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court of Slovenia permitted a review of the lower courts' decision regarding the application of the three-year statute of limitations for commercial contract claims. The first-instance court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, while the second-instance court dismissed the defendant's appeal and upheld the original judgment. The Supreme Court found that the lower courts failed to consider the statutory limitation period when assessing liability under Article 442 of the Act on the Law of Obligations, thereby incorrectly applying substantive law.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 367a paragraph 1 of the Act on Civil Procedure; Article 442 of the Act on the Law of Obligations: A review is admissible when lower courts fail to apply the three-year statute of limitations for commercial contract claims, resulting in the erroneous application of substantive law regarding liability.

Keywords

AI generated
statute of limitations commercial contracts liability assessment substantive law application review admissibility lower court error ZFPPIPP

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 367a paragraph 1 of the Act on Civil Procedure
Article 442 of the Act on the Law of Obligations
AI generated
VSL sodba Cpg 852/94
Appeal dismissed because plaintiff failed to prove debt and did not admit lack of evidence when court requested it.
VSL sklep I Cpg 493/98
Appeal allowed; lower court reversed for new trial on statute of limitations and debt existence in commercial dispute.
Sklep III Ips 43/97
Contractor wins appeal; court finds lower courts wrongly applied law on interim payment situations.
VSRS sklep III DoR 113/2013
Supreme Court allows review regarding failure to apply three-year limitation period for commercial contract claims under ZFPPIPP.
VDSS sklep Pdp 556/2016
Appeal dismissed; lawsuit against dissolved company's shareholder rejected as untimely due to lawyer's fault.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

Revizija se dopusti glede vprašanja, ali sta sodišči nižjih stopenj s tem, ko pri presoji odgovornosti poslovodje na podlagi določbe 442. člena ZFPPIPP nista upoštevali triletnega zastaralnega roka za zastaranje terjatev iz gospodarskih pogodb, zmotno uporabili materialno pravo.

[JEDRO]

Revizija se dopusti glede vprašanja, ali sta sodišči nižjih stopenj s tem, ko pri presoji odgovornosti poslovodje na podlagi določbe 442. člena ZFPPIPP nista upoštevali triletnega zastaralnega roka za zastaranje terjatev iz gospodarskih pogodb, zmotno uporabili materialno pravo.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Sodišče prve stopnje je v celoti ugodilo tožbenemu zahtevku za plačilo dobavljenega blaga. Posledično je toženi stranki naložilo tudi plačilo pravdnih stroškov tožeče stranke.

2. Sodišče druge stopnje je pritožbo tožene stranke zavrnilo in potrdilo izpodbijano sodbo.

3. Vrhovno sodišče je ugotovilo, da glede vprašanja, opredeljenega v izreku tega sklepa, obstajajo pogoji za dopustitev revizije iz prvega odstavka 367.a člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku, zato je revizijo glede tega vprašanja dopustilo.