Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSRS Sklep III DoR 19/2019-8 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2019:III.DOR.19.2019.8 AI generated

Supreme Court allows appeal regarding exclusionary rights on monetary claims outside specific ZFPPIPP categories.

Case Number VSRS Sklep III DoR 19/2019-8
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 permitted the appeal against a second-instance judgment that rejected a claim for an exclusionary right on a monetary debt. The plaintiff sought to enforce a right arising from a 1981 self-governance agreement, while the defendant argued the claim did not fit the specific categories listed in Article 22, Paragraph 3 of the ZFPPIPP. The court decided to allow the review because the conditions for admitting an appeal under Article 367.a of the Code of Civil Procedure were met regarding this specific legal question.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 367.a of the Code of Civil Procedure; Article 22, Paragraph 3 of the Act on the Protection of Property Rights of Persons with Exclusionary Rights; An appeal is admissible when the question concerns the applicability of exclusionary rights on monetary claims not explicitly listed in the statutory categories.

Keywords

AI generated
exclusionary rights monetary claims ZFPPIPP appeal admissibility self-governance agreement code of civil procedure property rights

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 367.a of the Code of Civil Procedure
Article 22, Paragraph 3 of the Act on the Protection of Property Rights of Persons with Exclusionary Rights
Article 324, Paragraph 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure
AI generated
VSL sodba I Cpg 149/2015
Appeal dismissed; no eviction right exists if the underlying claim is not part of the bankruptcy estate.
VSRS Sklep II Ips 82/2016
Supreme Court allows appeal against insurance denial based on vehicle defects unrelated to the accident cause.
VSL sodba I Cp 2947/2016
Appeal dismissed; small value court judgments cannot be challenged solely on factual error grounds.
VSL sodba I Cpg 1328/99
Plaintiff dismissed for failing to prove loan contract; burden of proof remains on plaintiff despite defendant's receipt of funds.
VSL Sklep I Cpg 465/2023
Appeal allowed; court held health fund cannot delegate health contribution claims to tax authority in insolvency proceedings.

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 (in na kakšen način) je mogoče uveljavljati izločitveno pravico na (denarni) terjatvi, če ne gre za položaje, ki jih našteva tretji odstavek 22. člena ZFPPIPP.

[JEDRO]

Revizija se dopusti glede vprašanja, ali (in na kakšen način) je mogoče uveljavljati izločitveno pravico na (denarni) terjatvi, če ne gre za položaje, ki jih našteva tretji odstavek 22. člena ZFPPIPP.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Sodišče prve stopnje je ugodilo zahtevku za ugotovitev obstoja tožničine izločitvene pravice na denarni terjatvi do C., d.o.o., iz naslova Samoupravnega sporazuma o ureditvi medsebojnih razmerij pri izvedbi del po projektu A., sklenjenega leta 20. 10. 1981, ki je obstajala v času uvedbe stečajnega postopka nad toženko in na podlagi katere je C., d.o.o. v času od 1. 4. 2016 do 30. 6. 2016 na račun toženke nakazal 1.004.917,84 USD (1. točka izreka). Toženki je naložilo, da mora tožnici plačati ta znesek, skupaj z zakonskimi zamudnimi obrestmi od 14. 3. 2018 dalje (2. točka izreka).

2. Sodišče druge stopnje je pritožbo tožene stranke zavrnilo in potrdilo izpodbijano sodbo.

3. Zoper sodbo sodišča druge stopnje tožena stranka vlaga 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.

5. Vrhovno sodišče je odločitev sprejelo z dvema glasovoma za in enim proti. Za sprejeto odločitev sta glasovala vrhovna sodnika Balažic in dr. Dolenc (sedmi odstavek 324. člena ZPP).