Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSRS Sklep III DoR 123/2016 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2017:III.DOR.123.2016 AI generated

Appeal allowed regarding whether the limitation period in Article 480 of the Obligations Act applies to a claim for return of goods due to a defect.

Case Number VSRS Sklep III DoR 123/2016
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 to allow a revision appeal concerning the applicability of the limitation period under Article 480 of the Obligations Act. The first-instance court dismissed the claim for return of goods due to a defect, and the appellate court upheld this decision while rejecting the applicant's appeal. The Supreme Court determined that the conditions for allowing the revision were met specifically regarding the legal question of the limitation period's applicability.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 480 of the Obligations Act; Article 367.a of the Act on Civil Procedure: The Supreme Court may allow a revision appeal if the question concerns the interpretation or application of the law, specifically whether the limitation period in Article 480 applies to a claim for return of goods due to a defect.

Keywords

AI generated
limitation period return of goods defect in goods revision appeal Obligations Act civil procedure Supreme Court

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 480 of the Obligations Act
Article 367.a of the Act on Civil Procedure
AI generated
Sodba II Ips 327/2010
Supreme Court dismisses appeal as review court only examines appellant's claims post-2008 procedural reform.
VSL Sklep I Cpg 582/2021
Appeal partially allowed; plaintiff must pay defendant costs after withdrawal due to partial debt satisfaction.
VSL sklep II Cp 1853/2012
Appeal allowed; appeal court reversed first instance judgment on unjust enrichment claim regarding water maintenance costs.
VSL Sodba I Cp 1311/2022
Appeal dismissed; court upheld first instance judgment on small value dispute despite procedural change.
VSRS Sklep II DoR 182/2017
Supreme Court dismisses review request as statutory conditions for admissibility under ZPP 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

Predlogu se ugodi in se revizija dopusti glede vprašanja, ali za (kondikcijski) zahtevek na vračilo kupnine po odstopu od prodajne pogodbe zaradi stvarne napake na kupljenem blagu velja prekluzivni rok po prvem odstavku 480. člena OZ.

[JEDRO]

Predlogu se ugodi in se revizija dopusti glede vprašanja, ali za (kondikcijski) zahtevek na vračilo kupnine po odstopu od prodajne pogodbe zaradi stvarne napake na kupljenem blagu velja prekluzivni rok po prvem odstavku 480. člena OZ.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Sodišče prve stopnje je tožbeni zahtevek na plačilo 15.270,83 EUR s pripadajočimi zakonskimi zamudnimi obrestmi zavrnilo. Odločilo je, da mora tožeča stranka toženi povrniti njene pravdne stroške.

2. Sodišče druge stopnje je pritožbo tožeče stranke zavrnilo in potrdilo prvostopenjsko sodbo. Tožeči stranki je naložilo povrnitev stroškov odgovora na pritožbo tožene stranke.

3. Zoper sodbo sodišča druge stopnje, v delu, ki se nanaša na odločitev o tožbenem zahtevku za plačilo 11.273,03 EUR z zakonskimi zamudnimi obrestmi od 30. 11. 2010 do plačila, 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.