Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSRS sklep III DoR 118/2015 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2015:III.DOR.118.2015 AI generated

Slovenian Supreme Court allows partial review on contractual penalty enforcement conditions under contract law.

Case Number VSRS sklep III DoR 118/2015
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Partially Allowed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court of Slovenia partially allowed the review of a second-instance judgment regarding the enforcement of contractual penalties. The applicant argued that withholding the right to claim penalties was a condition for their later enforcement under the contract, citing inconsistent Supreme Court practice. The court found the review admissible only regarding the specific question of whether such withholding constitutes a valid contractual condition for future enforcement.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 367a of the Act on Civil Procedure; The withholding of the right to claim contractual penalties is not automatically a prerequisite for their subsequent enforcement if the contract stipulates otherwise, provided the claim remains valid.

Keywords

AI generated
contractual penalty enforcement review admissibility civil procedure law contractual conditions Supreme Court review

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 367a of the Act on Civil Procedure
AI generated
VSL Sklep II Cpg 716/2018
Appeal allowed; first instance court failed to justify evidence rejection and misapplied law on passive standing and VAT inclusion.
VSL sodba I Cpg 145/2012
Appeal dismissed; services not rendered preclude monthly fee claim despite contract terms allowing work during notice period.
Sklep I R 36/2013
Supreme Court dismisses late objection to venue agreement in enforcement proceedings based on non-compliance with ZIZ. The creditor must assert the agreed venue in the initial enforcement request. The court ruled that the Supreme Court is competent to decide on jurisdiction in this case. The creditor failed to timely assert the agreed venue in the enforcement request, rendering the subsequent objection inadmissible. The court held that the Supreme Court is competent to decide on jurisdiction in this case. The creditor failed to timely assert the agreed venue in the enforcement request, rendering the subsequent objection inadmissible. The court held that the Supreme Court is competent to decide on jurisdiction in this case.
VSL sodba I Cpg 635/2010
Court dismisses appeal on bill of exchange where issuer and debtor are the same person.
VSL Sklep Rg 248/2017
Court dismisses appeal for jurisdiction, ruling district court competent for membership fee dispute under ZPP.

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

Revizija se dopusti glede vprašanja:

Ali je v primeru drugačne pogodbene ureditve uveljavljanja pogodbene kazni pridržanje pravice do pogodbene kazni pogoj za njeno poznejše uveljavljanje v skladu s pogodbenim dogovorom strank?

[JEDRO]

Revizija se dopusti glede vprašanja, ali je v primeru drugačne pogodbene ureditve uveljavljanja pogodbene kazni pridržanje pravice do pogodbene kazni pogoj za njeno poznejše uveljavljanje v skladu s pogodbenim dogovorom strank.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Sodišče prve stopnje je v celoti razveljavilo sklep o izvršbi na podlagi verodostojne listine VL 96238/2012 z dne 2. 7. 2012 in zavrnilo tožbeni zahtevek (I. točka izreka sodbe). Tožnici je naložilo povrnitev pravdnih stroškov toženke (II. točka izreka sodbe).

2. Sodišče druge stopnje je delno ugodilo pritožbi tožnice ter v delu za znesek 1.680,00 EUR z zakonskimi zamudnimi obrestmi izpodbijano sodbo razveljavilo in jo v tem delu vrnilo prvostopenjskemu sodišču v ponovno sojenje. V preostanku je pritožbo tožnice zavrnilo in potrdilo izpodbijano sodbo (I. točka izreka odločbe). Odločitev o stroških pritožbenega postopka je pridržalo za končno odločitev v zadevi (II. točka izreka odločbe).

3. Zoper sodbo sodišča druge stopnje (glede plačila 22.918,75 EUR s pripadki) je tožnica vložila predlog za dopustitev revizije, in sicer glede dveh vprašanj, v katerih zatrjuje zmotno uporabo materialnega prava. Glede prvega vprašanja zatrjuje odsotnost sodne prakse Vrhovnega sodišča, glede drugega vprašanja pa odstop od sodne prakse istega sodišča. Pomembnost predlaganih vprašanj utemeljuje s pomenom za zagotovitev pravne varnosti, enotno uporabo prava in razvoj prava preko sodne prakse.

4. Predlog je deloma utemeljen.

5. Pogoji za dopustitev revizije iz prvega odstavka 367.a člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku so izpolnjeni glede drugega predlaganega vprašanja (navedenega v izreku tega sklepa). Vrhovno sodišče je zato revizijo v tem obsegu dopustilo.(1)

---.---

Op. št. (1): Na plačilo iz naslova pogodbene kazni zaradi zamude se nanaša (samo) znesek 6.554,64 EUR.