Court rejects request to allow review of a final costs ruling as it does not end proceedings. The Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's request for permission to appeal a final costs ruling, holding that such a ruling does not legally conclude the proceedings and therefore cannot be reviewed under the Civil Procedure Act. Since the proceedings remain open, the legal basis for granting a review was absent, leading to the rejection of the application. The decision clarifies that only rulings formally ending proceedings are subject to review, distinguishing final costs orders from those that do not terminate the case. This interpretation ensures procedural efficiency by preventing unnecessary appeals against interim cost allocations. The court emphasized strict adherence to statutory requirements for reviewable decisions.
Slovenia (SI)
Legislator summary
AI generatedThe Supreme Court of Slovenia rejected the applicant's request for permission to appeal a final costs ruling. The applicant sought review of a decision ordering the defendant to pay litigation costs, arguing it was a final judgment. The court determined that a costs ruling does not legally conclude the proceedings and thus falls outside the scope of permissible appeals. Consequently, the request for review was dismissed as there was no legal basis to permit it.
Legislator headnote
AI generatedZakon o pravdnem postopku, 384. člen; 367. člen: A ruling on litigation costs does not legally conclude the proceedings; therefore, a request for permission to appeal such a ruling is inadmissible.
Keywords
AI generatedCited Legislation
AI generatedCited Case Law
AI generatedRelated Decisions
AI generatedFull text
Predlog se zavrže.
[JEDRO]
Sklep o stroških postopka ni sklep, s katerim se postopek pravnomočno konča. Ker revizija zoper tak sklep ni dovoljena, je tudi ni mogoče dopustiti.
[OBRAZLOŽITEV]
1. Sodišče prve stopnje je ugotovilo, da obstaja terjatev tožeče stranke do tožene stranke v višini 7.514,35 EUR z zamudnimi obrestmi (I. točka izreka). Tožeči stranki je naložilo, da toženi stranki povrne stroške pravdnega postopka v višini 514,06 EUR (II. točka izreka).
2. Sodišče druge stopnje je ugodilo pritožbi tožeče stranke in je izpodbijano sodbo sodišča prve stopnje v II. točki izreka glede pravdnih stroškov spremenilo tako, da je toženi stranki naložilo, da tožeči stranki povrne pravdne stroške v znesku 857,24 EUR (I. točka izreka). Toženi stranki je tudi naložilo, da tožeči stranki povrne stroške pritožbenega postopka v znesku 201,94 EUR (II. točka izreka).
3. Tožena stranka je zoper I. in II. točko izreka sklepa sodišča druge stopnje vložila predlog za dopustitev revizije.
4. Predlog ni dovoljen.
5. Sklep o stroških postopka ni sklep, s katerim se postopek pravnomočno konča.(1) Ker revizija zoper tak sklep ni dovoljena (prvi odstavek 384. člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku, v nadaljevanju ZPP), je tudi ni mogoče dopustiti (četrti odstavek 367. člena ZPP). Vrhovno sodišče je zato predlog tožene stranke zavrglo.
----
(1) Primerjaj Pravno mnenje Vrhovnega sodišča RS z dne 15. 12. 1998, Pravna mnenja 2/98, str. 4.