Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSRS sklep III DoR 113/2013 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2014:III.DOR.113.2013.1 AI generated

Supreme Court allows review regarding failure to apply three-year limitation period for commercial contract claims under ZFPPIPP.

Case Number VSRS sklep III DoR 113/2013
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Partially Allowed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court of Slovenia permitted a review of the lower courts' decision on a specific legal issue. The first-instance court granted the plaintiff's claim for payment of goods, while the second-instance court rejected the defendant's appeal. The Supreme Court found that the lower courts incorrectly applied material law by failing to consider the three-year limitation period for commercial contract claims under Article 442 of the ZFPPIPP.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 442 of the ZFPPIPP; Article 367.a(1) of the Act on Civil Procedure: The Supreme Court may permit a review when lower courts fail to apply the three-year limitation period for claims arising from commercial contracts, constituting an erroneous application of material law.

Keywords

AI generated
commercial contract claims three-year limitation period ZFPPIPP Article 442 erroneous application of law review of judgment civil procedure review business law liability

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 442 of the ZFPPIPP
Article 367.a(1) of the Act on Civil Procedure
AI generated
VSL sodba II Cpg 404/2011
Court dismisses claim for invalidity compensation due to statute of limitations in successive damage cases.
VSK Sodba Cpg 26/2017
Court dismissed appeal; ownership of goods remained with consignor under sales order, shifting risk of loss to consignor.
VSL Sodba II Cp 75/2017
Tenant's liability for art damage excluded by landlord's negligent storage in cellar.
VSL sklep Cpg 160/93
Appeal dismissed because plaintiff failed to specify withdrawal reason, so court correctly ordered them to pay defendant's costs.
VSL Sodba I Cpg 623/2022
Appeal dismissed; court upheld first instance ruling on damages and lost profit calculation standards.

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 sta sodišči nižjih stopenj s tem, ko pri presoji odgovornosti poslovodje na podlagi določbe 442. člena ZFPPIPP nista upoštevali triletnega zastaralnega roka za zastaranje terjatev iz gospodarskih pogodb, zmotno uporabili materialno pravo.

[JEDRO]

Revizija se dopusti glede vprašanja, ali sta sodišči nižjih stopenj s tem, ko pri presoji odgovornosti poslovodje na podlagi določbe 442. člena ZFPPIPP nista upoštevali triletnega zastaralnega roka za zastaranje terjatev iz gospodarskih pogodb, zmotno uporabili materialno pravo.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Sodišče prve stopnje je v celoti ugodilo tožbenemu zahtevku za plačilo dobavljenega blaga. Posledično je toženi stranki naložilo tudi plačilo pravdnih stroškov tožeče stranke.

2. Sodišče druge stopnje je pritožbo tožene stranke zavrnilo in potrdilo izpodbijano sodbo.

3. Vrhovno sodišče je ugotovilo, da glede vprašanja, opredeljenega v izreku tega sklepa, obstajajo pogoji za dopustitev revizije iz prvega odstavka 367.a člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku, zato je revizijo glede tega vprašanja dopustilo.