Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Sklep III DoR 134/2013 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2014:III.DOR.134.2013 AI generated

Supreme Court allows partial review regarding Article 214 ZPP breach and interest claim admissibility.

Case Number Sklep III DoR 134/2013
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 for leave to appeal regarding specific legal questions while denying it for others. The applicant argued that the lower courts violated Article 214 of the Construction Law by requiring the investor to prove the timeliness and validity of a security claim against the main contractor. The court permitted the review only on these precise issues because the alleged procedural breach was plausible, whereas the remaining request was dismissed as the claim of a fundamental procedural violation was not sufficiently substantiated.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 214 of the Construction Law; Article 367.a(1) of the Act on Civil Procedure Law: The Supreme Court may permit a review of a final decision only if the applicant demonstrates a plausible chance of success regarding the specific legal questions identified in the application, excluding those where the alleged procedural violation is not credibly established.

Keywords

AI generated
Construction Law Article 214 Security claim validity Investor burden of proof Civil Procedure Law Article 367a Leave to appeal standard Plausible chance of success Procedural violation admissibility

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 214 of the Construction Law
Article 367.a(1) of the Act on Civil Procedure Law
AI generated
VSL sodba II Cp 1941/2014
Appeal court voids enforcement order and dismisses claim because bill of exchange requires original presentation and endorsement lacks guarantee commitment.
VSL Sodba II Cp 181/2019
Appeal dismissed; joint guarantors bound by debt due date regardless of creditor notification or consumer credit law protections.
VDSS sodba Pdp 450/2015
Appeal court dismissed claim for director salary supplement citing lack of legal basis and public fund protection.
VSL sodba II Cp 1659/2014
Court partially allowed appeal correcting interest start date to 9 days after enforcement order service.
VSRS Sodba III Ips 78/2016
Limitation of public entity representation not binding third parties without court register entry despite official gazette publication.

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 glede vprašanj:

Ali je bila s strani sodišč prve in druge stopnje kršena določba 214. člena ZPP, ko sta presodili, da bi tožena stranka kot investitor objekta glede obstoja napak gradbe, za katere odgovarja glavni izvajalec, morala zatrjevati in dokazovati pravočasnost, pravilnost in utemeljenost jamčevalnega zahtevka v razmerju do glavnega izvajalca gradbenih del?

Ali je tožba glede obrestnega dela zahtevka v obravnavanem primeru sklepčna?

[JEDRO]

Predlogu se ugodi in se revizija dopusti glede vprašanj:

Ali je bila s strani sodišč prve in druge stopnje kršena določba 214. člena ZPP, ko sta presodili, da bi tožena stranka kot investitor objekta glede obstoja napak gradbe, za katere odgovarja glavni izvajalec, morala zatrjevati in dokazovati pravočasnost, pravilnost in utemeljenost jamčevalnega zahtevka v razmerju do glavnega izvajalca gradbenih del?

Ali je tožba glede obrestnega dela zahtevka v obravnavanem primeru sklepčna?

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Sodišči prve in druge stopnje sta ohranili v veljavi sklep o izvršbi, na podlagi katerega je tožena stranka dolžna plačati 47.746,80 EUR z zakonskimi zamudnimi obrestmi.

2. Zoper odločitev sodišča druge stopnje vlaga tožena stranka predlog za dopustitev revizije. Revizijsko sodišče ugotavlja, da so izpolnjeni pogoji za dopustitev revizije iz prvega odstavka 367.a člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku glede pravnih vprašanj, opredeljenih v izreku sklepa. Revizijo je zato v tem obsegu dopustilo.

3. Glede preostalega vprašanja pogoji za dopustitev revizije niso izpolnjeni, saj očitana bistvena kršitev določb pravdnega postopka ni verjetno izkazana.