Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSRS Sklep III DoR 68/2016 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2016:III.DOR.68.2016 AI generated

Supreme Court allows appeal regarding legal meaning of confirmed IOP form for debt acknowledgment.

Case Number VSRS Sklep III DoR 68/2016
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 applicant's request for leave to appeal in a limited scope. The applicant challenged a final judgment dismissing a payment claim based on a confirmed IOP form, arguing its legal significance for acknowledging a time-barred debt. The court determined that the specific questions regarding the form's legal effect and the necessity of explicit claims about unauthorized signing constitute grounds for review under the relevant procedural law.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Zakon o pravdnem postopku, 367.a odst. 1: The Supreme Court may grant leave to appeal when the first-instance judgment fails to address a question of law or fact that is decisive for the outcome of the case.

Keywords

AI generated
leave to appeal IOP form time-barred debt acknowledgment of debt unauthorized signing procedural law Supreme Court review

Cited Legislation

AI generated
367.a odst. 1 Zakona o pravdnem postopku
AI generated
VSL Sodba II Cp 2094/2021
Contract dispute dismissed where contractor failed to complete the entire replacement of damaged flooring as agreed.
VSL sodba I Cpg 1344/2013
Contractor dismissed claim for higher hourly rate due to lack of prior client consent for additional work.
VSL Sklep I Cp 473/2021
Appeal granted; first-instance court violated procedural rules by issuing default judgment despite a request for a hearing.
VSL sodba II Cp 3232/2016
Appeal dismissed; claim for court fees must be raised in the original proceedings, not via separate lawsuit.
VSL Sodba I Cp 748/2017
Appeal dismissed; unauthorized signature on credit contract precludes unjust enrichment claim against account holder.

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 vprašanj:

- Kakšen je pravni pomen potrjenega IOP obrazca (izpisa odprtih postavk) za pripoznavo zastarane obveznosti oziroma ali in kdaj navedeni potrjeni obrazec predstavlja pripoznavo zastarane obveznosti?

- Ali mora tožeča stranka izrecno zatrjevati, da je listino podpisal zakoniti zastopnik tožene stranke kljub pomanjkanju ugovorov tožene stranke v zvezi z nepooblaščenostjo osebe, ki je listino podpisala?

[JEDRO]

Revizija se dopusti glede vprašanj:

- kakšen je pravni pomen potrjenega IOP obrazca (izpisa odprtih postavk) za pripoznavo zastarane obveznosti oziroma ali in kdaj navedeni potrjeni obrazec predstavlja pripoznavo zastarane obveznosti;

- ali mora tožeča stranka izrecno zatrjevati, da je listino podpisal zakoniti zastopnik tožene stranke kljub pomanjkanju ugovorov tožene stranke v zvezi z nepooblaščenostjo osebe, ki je listino podpisala.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Sodišče prve stopnje je sklep o izvršbi razveljavilo v celoti in tožbeni zahtevek za plačilo 26.639,13 EUR zavrnilo.

2. Sodišče druge stopnje je prvostopenjsko sodbo potrdilo.

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 vprašanj, opredeljenih v izreku sklepa. Revizijo je zato v tem obsegu dopustilo.