Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSRS Sklep III DoR 25/2019-11 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2019:III.DOR.25.2019.11 AI generated

Supreme Court allows appeal regarding application of the prudent businessman rule in commercial dispute.

Case Number VSRS Sklep III DoR 25/2019-11
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court of Slovenia granted permission for an appeal against the second instance court's decision. The lower courts ruled that the defendant failed to prove they acted with the prudence of a prudent businessman. The court permitted the review because the conditions for an appeal under the Code of Civil Procedure were met regarding this specific legal issue.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Zakon o pravdnem postopku (ZPP), 367.a odst. 1: Permission for an appeal is granted when the lower courts incorrectly applied material law regarding the application of the prudent businessman rule.

Keywords

AI generated
prudent businessman rule commercial liability burden of proof appeal permission code of civil procedure business conduct supreme court review

Cited Legislation

AI generated
367.a odst. 1 ZPP
324. odst. 7 ZPP
AI generated
VSL Sodba I Cpg 17/2022
Appeal dismissed; non-de facto user can recover NUSZ paid by de facto user under Civil Code s. 197.
VSM sklep I Cpg 445/2015
Appeal allowed; appeal court quashes first instance judgment for procedural violations regarding set-off arguments.
VSL sodba I Cpg 1164/2012
Appeal court dismisses bank guarantee claim due to undefined conditions violating strict formalism principles.
VSL sodba I Cp 2488/2016
Court reduces denationalization rent loss by deducting management costs and adjusts tax payment order.
VSL Sodba I Cpg 380/2019
Appeal dismissed; court upheld debt judgment where defendant failed to prove payment agreement. Appeal dismissed; court upheld debt judgment where defendant failed to prove payment agreement.

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 sta sodišči nižjih stopenj pravilno uporabili materialno pravo, ko sta presodili, da v okoliščinah konkretnega primera toženi stranki ni uspelo dokazati, da je ravnala s skrbnostjo vestnega in poštenega gospodarstvenika (pravilo podjetniške presoje)?

[JEDRO]

Revizija se dopusti glede vprašanja ali sta sodišči nižjih stopenj pravilno uporabili materialno pravo, ko sta presodili, da v okoliščinah konkretnega primera toženi stranki ni uspelo dokazati, da je ravnala s skrbnostjo vestnega in poštenega gospodarstvenika (pravilo podjetniške presoje).

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Sodišče prve stopnje je ugodilo tožbenemu zahtevku tožeče stranke, da ji je tožena stranka dolžna plačati 326.598,13 EUR z zakonskimi zamudnimi obrestmi od 14. 11. 2011. Toženi stranki je naložilo, da tožeči stranki plača 15.699,42 EUR pravdnih stroškov.

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

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

4. Vrhovno sodišče ugotavlja, da so izpolnjeni pogoji za dopustitev revizije iz prvega odstavka 367.a člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku (ZPP) glede vprašanja, opredeljenega v izreku sklepa. Revizijo je zato v tem obsegu dopustilo.

5. Sklep je bil sprejet soglasno (sedmi odstavek 324. člena ZPP).