Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Sklep III DoR 129/2013 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2014:III.DOR.129.2013 AI generated

Supreme Court allows appeal regarding correct application of Article 213(2) of the Enforcement Act.

Case Number Sklep III DoR 129/2013
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court granted the request for permission to appeal, allowing the review to proceed on the legal issue of Article 213(2) of the Enforcement Act. The lower court had partially modified the first-instance judgment, ordering joint and several payment of approximately 81,644 EUR and 124,584 EUR to the plaintiff under specific conditions of a confirmed forced settlement. The Court determined that the conditions for an appeal under Article 367.a of the Act on Civil Procedure Law were met because the second-instance court incorrectly applied the relevant statutory provision.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 367.a(1) of the Act on Civil Procedure Law; Article 213(2) of the Enforcement Act: An appeal is permitted when the second-instance court incorrectly applies a provision governing the calculation of interest or payment conditions in a forced settlement enforcement proceeding.

Keywords

AI generated
Enforcement Act forced settlement interest calculation civil procedure law permission to appeal joint and several liability statutory interpretation

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 367.a(1) of the Act on Civil Procedure Law
Article 213(2) of the Enforcement Act
AI generated
Sodba in sklep II Ips 723/2004
Slovenian Supreme Court dismisses appeal on traffic accident damages, rejecting unequal liability split and non-pecuniary compensation amounts.
VDS sodba Pdp 1705/2002
Court dismisses appeal, ruling interest on severance pay must follow forced settlement terms, not privileged claim rules.
VSL Sodba I Cpg 420/2023
Insurance appeal dismissed; claimant failed to prove damage causation and bore burden of proof.
Sodba in sklep II Ips 482/2003
Court rejects appeal on damages and costs, ruling no causal link between dog shooting and gun use excuses liability.
Sodba in sklep II Ips 493/2009
Supreme Court dismisses appeal against tort liability for unauthorized road work causing property damage to neighbors.

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 pravnem vprašanju, ali je sodišče druge stopnje pravilno uporabilo določbo drugega odstavka 213. člena ZFPPIPP.

[JEDRO]

Predlogu se ugodi in se revizija dopusti o pravnem vprašanju, ali je sodišče druge stopnje pravilno uporabilo določbo drugega odstavka 213. člena ZFPPIPP.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Sodišče druge stopnje je, v delu, ki je pomemben za odločitev o predlogu za dopustitev revizije, delno ugodilo pritožbi tožeče stranke in sodbo sodišča prve stopnje v izpodbijani IV. točki izreka spremenilo tako, da a) sta prva in druga toženka dolžni tožeči stranki solidarno plačati, pod pogoji potrjene prisilne poravnave po sklepu Okrožnega sodišča v Ljubljani St 814/2009 z dne 29. 6. 2010 in z dne 7. 7. 2010, 81.644,35 EUR v roku 5 let od pravnomočnosti potrjene prisilne poravnave, pri čemer se navedeni znesek v obdobju od 6. 10. 2009 do poteka roka za plačilo obrestuje po obrestni meri 5% letno, od tedaj dalje pa z zakonskimi zamudnimi obrestmi do plačila; in b) je druga toženka dolžna tožeči stranki plačati 124.584,31 EUR z zakonskimi zamudnimi obrestmi od 2. 7. 2010 do plačila.

2. Tožeča stranka vlaga predlog za dopustitev revizije zoper tisti del sodbe sodišča druge stopnje, v katerem je bilo tožbenemu zahtevku zoper drugo toženko v znesku 81.644,35 EUR ugodeno pod pogoji iz potrjene prisilne poravnave.

3. Revizijsko sodišče ugotavlja, da so pogoji za dopustitev revizije iz prvega odstavka 367.a člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku (ZPP) izpolnjeni glede pravnega vprašanja, navedenega v izreku tega sklepa. Zato je predlogu ugodilo in revizijo glede tega vprašanja dopustilo.