Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Sklep II DoR 40/2014 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2014:II.DOR.40.2014 AI generated

Supreme Court dismisses appeal request for review permission due to non-compliance with Article 367a of the Civil Procedure Act.

Case Number Sklep II DoR 40/2014
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court of Slovenia rejected the defendant's request for permission to appeal, citing non-compliance with the statutory requirements for review under Article 367a of the Civil Procedure Act. The defendant argued that the second-instance court erred by adjusting the compensation amount based on pre-enforcement payments rather than strictly the amounts paid during enforcement, claiming a deviation from established case law. The court determined that despite the alleged procedural irregularities, the specific conditions necessary to grant a review request were not met, resulting in the dismissal of the petition.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 367a of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 367c of the Civil Procedure Act: A request for permission to appeal is inadmissible if the statutory conditions for granting such permission are not fulfilled, regardless of the substantive arguments regarding potential errors in the lower court's decision.

Keywords

AI generated
permission to appeal Civil Procedure Act review request second instance court compensation adjustment enforcement proceedings dismissal of petition

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 367a of the Civil Procedure Act
Article 367c of the Civil Procedure Act
Article 339 of the Civil Procedure Act
Article 2 of the Civil Procedure Act
Article 7 of the Civil Procedure Act
Article 180 of the Civil Procedure Act
Article 286 of the Civil Procedure Act

Cited Case Law

AI generated
II Ips 567/2001
Supreme Court dismisses appeal; claim for fair compensation rent increase limited by proven facts in original complaint.
II Ips 24/2002
Supreme Court dismisses appeal upholding notarial will validity despite alleged incapacity and procedural defects.
II Ips 246/2004
Appeal dismissed; new evidence of unemployment requires supporting proof under ZPP 286(1).
II Ips 560/2003
Appeal dismissed; late claim for housing purchase right lost due to mandatory statute of limitations. Claimant failed to file within 123.čl. SZ. Court rejected procedural arguments.
AI generated
Sodba in sklep II Ips 691/2005
Court dismisses appeal on interest claim, ruling it is subsidiary and not lost when only interest decision is contested.
VSL Sodba I Cpg 95/2025
Contractor dismissed appeal; failure to notify client of defects does not excuse liability for visible errors.
Sklep II Ips 75/95
Supreme Court allows appeal due to erroneous legal basis ignoring contract rights affecting claim validity.
VSL sodba II Cp 3152/2012
Swimming pool owner not liable for adult swimmer's injury due to lack of oral weight warning.
VSL sodba II Cp 2214/2010
Appeal court reduces damages for reduced life activities and adjusts court costs based on success ratio.

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

Predlog se zavrne.

[JEDRO]

Pogoji za dopustitev revizije iz prvega odstavka 367.a člena ZPP niso podani.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Sodišče prve stopnje je (med drugim) toženki naložilo, da mora tožnici plačati 3.554,01 EUR z obrestmi (I. točka izreka). V presežku do zneska 5.014,07 EUR je zahtevek zavrnilo (II. točka izreka).

2. Sodišče druge stopnje je toženkini pritožbi delno ugodilo in sodbo sodišča prve stopnje spremenilo tako, da je v I. točki izreka sodbe sodišča prve stopnje znesek 3.554,01 EUR nadomestilo s pravilnim zneskom 3.108,00 EUR. V ostalem delu je pritožbo zavrnilo in v izpodbijanem, a nespremenjenem delu potrdilo sodbo sodišča prve stopnje.

3. Toženka v predlogu za dopustitev revizije zatrjuje kršitev iz prvega odstavka 339. člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku (v nadaljevanju ZPP) v postopku pred sodiščem druge stopnje. Meni, da so podane kršitve iz prvega odstavka 2. člena, prvega odstavka 7. člena, prvega odstavka 180. člena in prvega odstavka 286. člena ZPP, ter da gre za odstop od sodne prakse Vrhovnega sodišča (ob tem se sklicuje na zadeve II Ips 567/2001, II Ips 24/2002, II Ips 246/2004 in II Ips 560/2003). Poudarja, da je tožnica v tožbi tožbeni zahtevek utemeljevala izključno na točno navedenih zneskih, ki jih je plačala v izvršbi, ne pa na zneskih, katere je plačala pred izvršbo. Zato odločitev sodišča druge stopnje zanjo predstavlja presenečenje.

4. Predlog ni utemeljen.

5. Pogoji za dopustitev revizije iz prvega odstavka 367.a člena ZPP niso podani, zato je Vrhovno sodišče toženkin predlog zavrnilo (drugi odstavek 367.c člena ZPP).