Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSRS Sklep III DoR 82/2016 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2016:III.DOR.82.2016 AI generated

Supreme Court allows appeal regarding appellate court's finding of heating costs paid by actual usage without hearing.

Case Number VSRS Sklep III DoR 82/2016
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 granted the petition for leave to appeal, permitting the review of a specific factual finding. The lower appellate court had declared the enforcement order invalid based on its own determination that heating costs were paid according to actual usage, a fact it established without a hearing. The court ruled that this specific issue met the statutory criteria for appellate review under the relevant procedural law.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 367a paragraph 1 of the Act on Civil Procedure; An appellate court may find a decisive fact differently from the first-instance court without a hearing if the conditions for leave to appeal are met.

Keywords

AI generated
leave to appeal appellate procedure hearing requirement factual finding enforcement order heating costs actual usage

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 367a paragraph 1 of the Act on Civil Procedure
AI generated
VSK sklep II Cpg 228/2006
Debtor's appeal dismissed for failing to prove non-existence of creditor's claim or damages from disclosure.
VSL sodba I Cpg 592/2015
Appeal partially allowed; objection to Slovenian court jurisdiction must be raised against enforcement order.
VSL sklep I Cpg 897/99
Appeal allowed; first instance court failed to verify credit amount and date, requiring new trial.
VSL Sodba II Cpg 98/2024
Appeal dismissed in small value commercial dispute; court upheld first instance judgment on evidence evaluation.
VSK sklep II Cpg 275/2005
Enforcement on promissory note upheld; appeal dismissed due to lack of evidence for non-existence of 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

Predlogu se ugodi in se revizija dopusti glede vprašanja, ali je smelo pritožbeno sodišče brez pritožbene obravnave drugače kot sodišče prve stopnje ugotoviti odločilno dejstvo plačila stroškov ogrevanja po dejanski porabi.

[JEDRO]

Revizija se dopusti glede vprašanja, ali je smelo pritožbeno sodišče brez pritožbene obravnave drugače kot sodišče prve stopnje ugotoviti odločilno dejstvo plačila stroškov ogrevanja po dejanski porabi.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Sodišče prve stopnje je odločilo, da ostane sklep o izvršbi Okrajnega sodišča v Ljubljani VL 165704/2011 z dne 9. 11. 2011 v celoti v veljavi.

2. Sodišče druge stopnje je pritožbi tožene stranke ugodilo in prvostopenjsko sodbo spremenilo tako, da je sklep o izvršbi Okrajnega sodišča v Ljubljani VL 165704/2011 z dne 9. 11. 2011 razveljavilo in tožbeni zahtevek zavrnilo.

3. Zoper sodbo sodišča druge stopnje vlaga tožeča stranka predlog za dopustitev revizije.

4. Revizijsko sodišče ugotavlja, da so izpolnjeni pogoji za dopustitev revizije iz prvega odstavka 367.a člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku glede vprašanja, opredeljenega v izreku sklepa. Revizijo je zato v tem obsegu dopustilo.