Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSRS Sklep III DoR 27/2015 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2015:III.DOR.27.2015 AI generated

Supreme Court allows appeal regarding active standing of a bankrupt fiduciary in a payment claim case.

Case Number VSRS Sklep III DoR 27/2015
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court permitted the appeal against the second-instance court's decision confirming the first-instance judgment. The appellant, a bankrupt fiduciary, challenged the active standing required to sue for payment of a transferred claim. The court found that the statutory conditions for allowing the appeal were met regarding this specific legal question.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 367a paragraph 1 of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 230 paragraph 1 of the Insolvency Act: An appeal is admissible when the lower courts incorrectly determined the active standing of a bankrupt fiduciary in a payment claim based on a fiduciary assignment.

Keywords

AI generated
active standing bankruptcy fiduciary assignment payment claim appeal admissibility insolvency proceedings legal standing

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 367a paragraph 1 of the Civil Procedure Act
Article 230 paragraph 1 of the Insolvency Act
AI generated
VSL sodba I Cp 916/2015
Appeal dismissed; plaintiff met burden with invoices and card usage details against defendant's vague objections.
VSM Sodba I Cp 185/2019
Appeal dismissed; court upheld first-instance judgment on mobile phone contract debt despite defendant's health claims.
VSM sodba I Cp 1019/2014
Court dismisses bill of exchange claim due to lack of active substantive standing and missing endorsement.
VSL sodba I Cpg 97/2015
Appeal dismissed; mere threat claims without specific evidence or counterclaim for contract rescission fail to overturn enforcement judgment.
VDSS sodba Pdp 206/2016
Appeal dismissed; employee breached non-compete clause by using employer-specific sales and mentorship know-how.

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 je odločitev sodišč prve in druge stopnje, da je za zahtevek za plačilo terjatve, ki je predmet fiduciarne cesije, podana (materialna) aktivna legitimacija tožeče stranke (ki je v stečaju in fiduciant), pravilna?

[JEDRO]

Revizija se dopusti glede vprašanja, ali je odločitev sodišč prve in druge stopnje, da je za zahtevek za plačilo terjatve, ki je predmet fiduciarne cesije, podana (materialna) aktivna legitimacija tožeče stranke (ki je v stečaju in fiduciant), pravilna.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Sodišče prve stopnje je v delu, relevantnem za odločitev o predlogu za dopustitev revizije, sklep o izvršbi Okrajnega sodišča v Ljubljani VL 143636/2013 z dne 14. 9. 2013 vzdržalo v veljavi za plačilo glavnice v znesku 7.643,40 EUR z zakonskimi zamudnimi obrestmi od 13. 9. 2013 dalje do plačila in za plačilo stroškov izvršilnega postopka v znesku 141,72 EUR z zakonskimi zamudnimi obrestmi od 27. 9. 2013 dalje do plačila (I. točka izreka).

2. Sodišče druge stopnje je pritožbo tožene stranke zavrnilo in v izpodbijanem delu potrdilo prvostopenjsko sodbo.

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

4. Pogoji za dopustitev revizije iz prvega odstavka 367.a člena ZPP so izpolnjeni glede predlaganega vprašanja, navedenega v izreku tega sklepa. Vrhovno sodišče je zato revizijo dopustilo.