Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Sklep III DoR 58/2013 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2014:III.DOR.58.2013 AI generated

Supreme Court allows appeal regarding procedural violations by lower courts in damages case.

Case Number Sklep III DoR 58/2013
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Partially Allowed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court granted the applicant's request to permit an appeal against the second-instance court's decision. The applicant argued that the lower courts committed essential procedural violations, specifically citing insufficient reasoning in the first instance and a failure to address arguments in the second instance regarding lost wages and transport costs. The court found these conditions met under the relevant procedural law and allowed the appeal on these specific issues.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Zakon o pravdnem postopku, 367.a odst. 1: The Supreme Court may permit an appeal when the second-instance court has rejected the appeal without sufficient reasoning or failed to address the appellant's arguments, provided the violation is clearly defined and essential for the decision.

Keywords

AI generated
procedural violation insufficient reasoning unaddressed arguments appeal permission damages claim

Cited Legislation

AI generated
367.a odst. 1 ZPP
AI generated
Sodba III Ips 134/98
Slovenian Supreme Court dismisses appeal where defendant failed to prove procedural violations or unauthorized representation rights.
Sodba III Ips 73/2010
Supreme Court dismisses appeal against bank liability for fraud where documents appeared genuine and AML reporting was complete.
VSRS Sklep III DoR 100/2020
Supreme Court allows review regarding whether a client must grant an additional time limit to a contractor upon contract termination.
VDSS sklep Pdp 127/2012
Appeal dismissed; lawyer representation waived right to self-represented appeal, making first-instance rejection lawful.
Sklep III DoR 62/2012
Supreme Court allows review to determine if lower courts ruled on a matter already finally decided.

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

Predlogu se ugodi in se revizija dopusti o vprašanju, ali sta sodišči nižjih stopenj zagrešili uveljavljane bistvene kršitve določb pravdnega postopka (prvostopenjsko sodišče z nezadostno obrazložitvijo sodbe, drugostopenjsko sodišče pa z neargumentiranim odgovorom na pritožbene navedbe) glede v pobot uveljavljane odškodninske terjatve, in sicer glede postavk „izgubljenega zaslužka“ in „stroškov prevoza modelov v Banja Luko“, ter glede obrestnega dela tožbenega zahtevka.

[JEDRO]

Predlogu se ugodi in se revizija dopusti o vprašanju, ali sta sodišči nižjih stopenj zagrešili uveljavljane bistvene kršitve določb pravdnega postopka (prvostopenjsko sodišče z nezadostno obrazložitvijo sodbe, drugostopenjsko sodišče pa z neargumentiranim odgovorom na pritožbene navedbe) glede v pobot uveljavljane odškodninske terjatve, in sicer glede postavk „izgubljenega zaslužka“ in „stroškov prevoza modelov v Banja Luko“, ter glede obrestnega dela tožbenega zahtevka.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Sodišče druge stopnje je v delu, ki je pomemben za odločitev o predlogu za dopustitev revizije, zavrnilo pritožbi pravdnih strank ter v I., II. in III. točki izreka potrdilo sodbo sodišča prve stopnje.

2. Zoper sodbo sodišča druge stopnje (II. točko njenega izreka) vlaga predlog za dopustitev revizije tožena stranka.

3. Ker so pogoji za dopustitev revizije iz prvega odstavka 367.a člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku (ZPP) izpolnjeni glede pravnega vprašanja, ki vsebinsko izhaja iz natančno in konkretno opisanih kršitev postopka, je Vrhovno sodišče revizijo o njem dopustilo.