Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSK sklep Cpg 53/2014 ECLI:SI:VSKP:2014:CPG.53.2014 AI generated

Appeal allowed; court found first instance ignored a notarized agreement excluding Article 158 ZPP costs upon withdrawal.

Case Number VSK sklep Cpg 53/2014
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Partially Allowed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and modified the first-instance decision to reject the defendant's request for legal costs. The lower court had terminated proceedings due to the plaintiff's withdrawal and ordered the plaintiff to pay costs, ignoring a notarized settlement agreement signed before the judge. The appellate court ruled that this written agreement, signed by both parties, constituted a judicial settlement excluding the application of Article 158 of the Code of Civil Procedure, thereby justifying the reversal of the cost order.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 158 of the Code of Civil Procedure; Article 365 of the Code of Civil Procedure: A clear, notarized agreement signed by both parties before the judge regarding the allocation of legal costs upon withdrawal constitutes a judicial settlement that excludes the statutory rule requiring the withdrawing party to bear all costs.

Keywords

AI generated
judicial settlement legal costs allocation withdrawal of claim Code of Civil Procedure notarized agreement procedural error appeal allowed

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 158 of the Code of Civil Procedure
Article 365 of the Code of Civil Procedure

Cited Case Law

AI generated
Supreme Court Decision Su 72/2013-115
AI generated
VSL sklep II Cpg 336/2011
Appeal dismissed; plaintiff bears costs for failing to verify insurance coverage before filing suit.
VSL sodba II Cpg 214/2010
Appeal dismissed; tenant water bill claim rejected due to lack of notice of lease change under water supply law.
VSL sklep I Cp 1284/99
Appeal allowed; new evidence of settlement agreement invalidates partial cost ruling requiring retrial.
VSK sodba Cpg 61/2015
Bankruptcy appeal dismissed because plaintiff failed to challenge the construction service agreement enabling set-off.
VSK sodba in sklep I Cp 404/2014
Appeal dismissed for non-appearance; appeal against costs order allowed due to lack of legal basis.

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

Pritožbi se ugodi in se izpodbijani sklep v točki II spremeni tako, da se predlog tožene stranke za povrnitev pravdnih stroškov zavrne.

[JEDRO]

Sodišče prve stopnje je očitno spregledalo dogovor pravdnih strank, zapisan v zapisniku naroka z dne 28.6.2013. Gre za jasen dogovor, sklenjen pred sodnikom, in podpisan s strani obeh strank, s katerim sta za primer umika tožbe stranki izključili uporabo določbe 158. člena ZPP.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Višje sodišče v Kopru je v tem gospodarskem sporu pristojno za odločanje o pritožbi na podlagi sklepa predsednika Vrhovnega sodišča RS Su 72/2013-115 z dne 8.11.2013.

Z izpodbijanim sklepom je Okrožno sodišče v Ljubljani zaradi umika tožbe ustavilo pravdni postopek in tožeči stranki naložilo v plačilo 619,15 EUR pravdnih stroškov.

Zoper odločitev o stroških se pritožuje tožena stranka. Navaja, da je bilo na naroku dogovorjeno, da bo v primeru umika tožbe vsaka stranka krila svoje stroške postopka. Ta dogovor je treba šteti kot sodno poravnavo glede stroškov, saj ustreza vsem pogojem za sodno poravnavo. Stranki sta se glede stroškov dogovorili, njun dogovor je bil vnesen v zapisnik, zapisnik sta obe stranki podpisali.

Pritožba je utemeljena.

Sodišče prve stopnje je očitno spregledalo dogovor pravdnih strank, zapisan v zapisniku naroka z dne 28.6.2013 in sicer, da sta soglasni, da bo v primeru umika tožbe vsaka stranka nosila svoje pravdne stroške, oziroma jih nobena stranka ne bo priglašala. Gre za jasen dogovor, sklenjen pred sodnikom, in podpisan s strani obeh strank, s katerim sta za primer umika tožbe stranki izključili uporabo določbe 158. člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku (ZPP). Pritožbeno sodišče je zato pritožbi ugodilo in sklep v točki II spremenilo, tako da je zavrnilo stroškovni zahtevek tožene stranke (3. točka 365. člena ZPP).