Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSRS Sklep III DoR 43/2016 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2016:III.DOR.43.2016 AI generated

Supreme Court dismisses review application as statutory admissibility conditions under ZPP 367.a are not met.

Case Number VSRS Sklep III DoR 43/2016
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 a review against the second-instance court's decision. The lower courts had partially upheld and partially revoked a enforcement order regarding unpaid interest amounts, with the second instance partially restoring the original order. The Supreme Court denied the review application because the specific conditions for admissibility outlined in Article 367.a of the Code of Civil Procedure were not satisfied.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 367.a of the Code of Civil Procedure; A review application is inadmissible if the statutory conditions for its permission are not met, resulting in the automatic rejection of the request.

Keywords

AI generated
Code of Civil Procedure review admissibility permission conditions enforcement order second instance decision

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 367.a of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPP)
AI generated
VSL Sodba I Cp 1175/2017
Contractual party cannot claim monetary damages instead of specific performance without breaching the agreement.
VSRS Sklep II DoR 137/2022
Supreme Court dismisses review application as legal conditions under ZPP Art. 367a were not met.
VSM Sodba I Cp 821/2022
Court increases grief damages from 25k to 30k euros based on child's age and mother's primary role.
VSL Sodba I Cpg 540/2022
Contract dispute: Court partially allows claim for defect removal costs while rejecting cumulative termination request.
VSL Sodba II Cp 1539/2018
Court rejects appeal confirming that a contractually agreed completion date constitutes a material term of the contract.

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]

Ker niso izpolnjeni pogoji, ki jih za dopustitev revizije določa 367.a člen Zakona o pravdnem postopku (ZPP), je Vrhovno sodišče predlog tožene stranke za njeno dopustitev zavrnilo.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Sodišče prve stopnje je sklep o izvršbi z dne 12. 2. 2013 ohranilo v veljavi glede zneska 155,76 EUR z zamudnimi obrestmi, v presežku glede plačila 2.041,99 EUR z zamudnimi obrestmi pa ga je razveljavilo in tožbeni zahtevek v tem delu zavrnilo. Sodišče druge stopnje je pritožbi tožeče stranke zoper zavrnilni del sodbe sodišča prve stopnje delno ugodilo tako, da je sklep o izvršbi z dne 12. 2. 2013 ohranilo v veljavi še glede zneska 1.580,35 EUR z zamudnimi obrestmi.

2. Tožena stranka je zoper sodbo sodišča druge stopnje vložila predlog za dopustitev revizije.

3. Ker niso izpolnjeni pogoji, ki jih za dopustitev revizije določa 367.a člen Zakona o pravdnem postopku (ZPP), je Vrhovno sodišče predlog tožene stranke za njeno dopustitev zavrnilo.