Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSRS sklep II DoR 19/2016 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2016:II.DOR.19.2016 AI generated

Supreme Court dismisses appeal admissibility request due to lack of deviation from established case law regarding evidence preclusion.

Case Number VSRS sklep II DoR 19/2016
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court of Slovenia rejected the applicant's request for permission to file an appeal, ruling that the conditions for admissibility were not met. The applicant argued that the lower court deviated from Supreme Court practice by failing to recognize evidence preclusion after a hearing was reopened due to a change in the presiding judge. The court determined that the lower court's decision did not constitute a departure from established jurisprudence, thereby denying the procedural prerequisite for an appeal.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Prvi odstavek 367.a člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku; drugi odstavek 367.c člena istega zakona: Predlog za dopustitev revizije se zavrne, če odločitev sodišča druge stopnje ne odstopa od sodne prakse Vrhovnega sodišča.

Keywords

AI generated
appeal admissibility evidence preclusion change of judge reopened hearing Supreme Court practice

Cited Legislation

AI generated
1. prvi odstavek 367.a člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku
2. drugi odstavek 367.c člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku

Cited Case Law

AI generated
II DoR 358/2012
Supreme Court allows appeal regarding procedural deadlines and evidentiary basis in inheritance dispute.
II Ips 335/2013
Appeal dismissed; procedural error did not affect outcome as court relied on other evidence under free evaluation rule.
II Ips 347/2010
Appeal dismissed; late evidence submission allowed if facts were unknown but relevant later. Expert bias claim inadmissible due to lack of prior objection.
II Ips 322/2014
Supreme Court allows appeal, overturns lower courts for procedural error regarding new evidence and lack of party status in administrative proceedings.
III DoR 88/2012
Supreme Court allows partial revision regarding procedural violations and evidence on production capacity in insurance dispute.
II DoR 358/2010
Supreme Court rejects appeal request for witness testimony due to lack of specific questions and irrelevant objections.
II Ips 28/2010
Court dismisses appeal claiming contract voidness due to restitution payment violates contract annulment concepts.
II Ips 35/2013
Supreme Court dismisses appeal for non-compliance with mandatory annex requirements for admissible appeals under ZPP. The court held that formal defects in admissible appeals preclude substantive review. The court ruled that appeals must include specific annexes as required by law. The court emphasized that formal defects in admissible appeals preclude substantive review. The court held that appeals must include specific annexes as required by law. The court emphasized that formal defects in admissible appeals preclude substantive review.
II Ips 41/2010
Toženec v predlogu za dopustitev revizije navaja, da odločitev sodišča druge stopnje odstopa od sodne prakse Vrhovnega sodišča (ob tem se sklicuje na zadeve II DoR 358/2012, II Ips 335/2013, II Ips 347/2010, II Ips 322/2014, III DoR 88/2012, II DoR 358/2010, II Ips 28/2010, II Ips 35/2013 in II Ips 41/2010).
AI generated
Sklep II Ips 121/2009
Appeal dismissed because joint liability not declared, making individual claim under threshold.
VSL Sodba I Cp 471/2022
Appeal court allows appeal, overturns first instance ruling on contract rescission due to statute of limitations expiration.
VDSS Sodba Pdp 439/2023
Labor court dismissed appeal upholding claim for higher travel costs due to service dog home placement.
Sodba II Ips 119/2006
Supreme Court dismisses soldier's appeal, upholding liability for injury during tank descent due to hazardous conditions.
VSRS Sklep II DoR 419/2021
Supreme Court dismisses review request as first-instance conditions for review under ZPP Art. 367a are not met.

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]

Pogoji za dopustitev revizije iz prvega odstavka 367.a člena ZPP niso podani.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Sodišče prve stopnje je tožencu naložilo, da mora tožniku plačati znesek 10.500,00 EUR z zakonskimi zamudnimi obrestmi. V presežku je tožbeni zahtevek zavrnilo.

2. Sodišče druge stopnje je toženčevo pritožbo zavrnilo in potrdilo prvostopenjsko sodbo.

3. Toženec v predlogu za dopustitev revizije navaja, da odločitev sodišča druge stopnje odstopa od sodne prakse Vrhovnega sodišča (ob tem se sklicuje na zadeve II DoR 358/2012, II Ips 335/2013, II Ips 347/2010, II Ips 322/2014, III DoR 88/2012, II DoR 358/2010, II Ips 28/2010, II Ips 35/2013 in II Ips 41/2010). Poudarja, da sodišče druge stopnje ni upoštevalo, da se je v obravnavani zadevi zaradi spremembe sodnice glavna obravnava ponovno odprla in se ponovno začela 18. 12. 2014 (na kateri sta obe stranki vztrajali pri vseh izvedenih dokazih in se strinjali, da se ponovno ne berejo). To pomeni, da je bila v obravnavani zadevi samo ena obravnava (dne 18. 12. 2014) in da zato ni mogoče govoriti o prekluziji dokazov, ki so bili podani dve leti pred tem narokom (22. 11. 2012). Predlaga dopustitev revizije glede vprašanja o prekluziji navajanja dejstev in dokazov v primeru, ko se zaradi spremembe sodnice zaključena obravnava ponovno odpre.

4. Predlog ni utemeljen.

5. Pogoji za dopustitev revizije iz prvega odstavka 367.a člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku niso podani, zato je Vrhovno sodišče toženčev predlog zavrnilo (drugi odstavek 367.c člena istega zakona).