Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Sklep III DoR 123/2013 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2014:III.DOR.123.2013 AI generated

Supreme Court dismisses review application as bankruptcy law does not mandate active investigation of partner insolvency.

Case Number Sklep III DoR 123/2013
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court rejected the applicant's request for permission to file a review of the second-instance judgment. The applicant argued that the defendant failed its duty of care by not actively investigating the insolvency of its contractual partners, citing specific articles of the Bankruptcy Act. The court held that these provisions do not impose an obligation on management to proactively assess partner insolvency, thus denying the procedural conditions for review.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Articles 28 to 30 of the Bankruptcy Act; The duty of care of a company's management does not require active investigation of the insolvency of contractual partners as a ground for challenging a contract.

Keywords

AI generated
duty of care bankruptcy law review application insolvency investigation contractual partners supreme court procedural conditions

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Articles 28 to 30 of the Bankruptcy Act
Article 367.a paragraph 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure
Article 367.c paragraph 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure
AI generated
VSL sodba I Cp 3206/2010
Appeal partially allowed; court corrects interest claim and adjusts legal costs based on partial success.
VDSS Sodba Pdp 316/2023
Appeal dismissed; mere readiness or phone availability does not equate to shortened weekly rest. Weekly rest not shortened by military readiness.
VSM sodba I Cp 1158/2013
Court dismisses adverse possession claim on public land, ruling public status blocks title acquisition regardless of good faith. Public goods cannot be acquired via adverse possession under current law.
VSL Sodba II Cp 1696/2017
Appeal dismissed; plaintiff's mere persistence in claims without new evidence fails to justify expert appointment.
VSL sodba I Cp 1462/93
Appellant's appeal dismissed; good faith possession for over three years acquired ownership rights. Good faith possession acquired ownership after three years. Good faith possession acquired ownership after three years.

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]

Edino vprašanje, ki bi utegnilo biti pomembno, se nanaša na dolžno skrbnost tožene stranke v zvezi s subjektivnim pogojem izpodbijanja. Predlagateljica ga utemeljuje na določbah 28. - 30. člena Zakona o finančnem poslovanju, postopkih zaradi insolventnosti in prisilnem prenehanju (ZFPPIPP). Vendar pa navedene določbe očitno ne dajejo podlage za aktivno ravnanje poslovodstva gospodarske družbe (upnice stečajne dolžnice), v smeri ugotavljanja insolventnosti njenih pogodbenih partnerjev, kakor to uveljavlja tožeča stranka v predlogu za dopustitev revizije.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Sodišče druge stopnje je zavrnilo pritožbo tožeče stranke in potrdilo sodbo sodišča prve stopnje, s katero je bil zavrnjen tožbeni zahtevek za razveljavitev učinka prodaje in prenosa lastninske pravice na blagu z izročitvijo stvari po več računih ter za vrnitev 10.491,48 EUR z zakonskimi zamudnimi obrestmi od 22. 9. 2011 dalje, tožeči stranki pa naložena povrnitev pravdnih stroškov tožene stranke v znesku 1.047,00 EUR z morebitnimi zakonskimi zamudnimi obrestmi.

2. Tožeča stranka zoper sodbo sodišča druge stopnje vlaga predlog za dopustitev revizije. V njem zastavlja več pravnih vprašanj in uveljavlja bistvene kršitve določb pravdnega postopka. Edino vprašanje, ki bi utegnilo biti pomembno, se nanaša na dolžno skrbnost tožene stranke v zvezi s subjektivnim pogojem izpodbijanja. Predlagateljica ga utemeljuje na določbah 28. - 30. člena Zakona o finančnem poslovanju, postopkih zaradi insolventnosti in prisilnem prenehanju (ZFPPIPP). Vendar pa navedene določbe očitno ne dajejo podlage za aktivno ravnanje poslovodstva gospodarske družbe (upnice stečajne dolžnice), v smeri ugotavljanja insolventnosti njenih pogodbenih partnerjev, kakor to uveljavlja tožeča stranka v predlogu za dopustitev revizije.

3. Ker niso izpolnjeni pogoji, ki jih za dopustitev revizije določa prvi odstavek 367.a člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku (v nadaljevanju ZPP), je Vrhovno sodišče na podlagi drugega odstavka 367.c člena ZPP predlog tožeče stranke zavrnilo.