Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSRS Sklep II DoR 109/2019 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2019:II.DOR.109.2019 AI generated

Supreme Court rejects review application regarding oral vs written lawyer fee agreements under ZPP Art. 367a.3.1. and 367c.2.

Case Number VSRS Sklep II DoR 109/2019
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court of Slovenia rejected the applicant's request for permission to appeal a first-instance judgment that had revoked an enforcement order and awarded damages. The applicant argued that oral agreements on lawyer fees were invalid and that concurrent oral and written agreements were possible, challenging the court's reliance on a written contract. The court determined that the statutory grounds for allowing a review under the Code of Civil Procedure were not met, as the first-instance court had correctly applied the law to the written evidence.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Art. 367a.3.1 ZPP; Art. 367c.2 ZPP: A review application is inadmissible if the first-instance court's decision was based on a correct application of law and the statutory grounds for review are not present.

Keywords

AI generated
review application permission to appeal lawyer fees oral agreement written contract Code of Civil Procedure enforcement order

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Art. 367a.3.1 ZPP
Art. 367c.2 ZPP
AI generated
VSL Sklep I Cp 2266/2019
Appeal allowed; contract allowing agent fee recovery not void under consumer protection law.
VSL sklep I Ip 4363/2014
Appeal allowed: Foreign pre-bankruptcy settlement agreements require bankruptcy proceedings recognition to have effect in Slovenia.
VSL Sodba II Cp 391/2018
Appeal granted; first-instance judgment reversed regarding enforcement order due to failure to prove chimney closure.
VSL Sodba II Cpg 146/2018
Appeal dismissed; court held unsubstantiated witness request does not constitute mandatory summons for enforcement.
VSL Sklep I Cpg 82/2018
Appeal allowed; first instance dismissed claim due to statute of limitations error, case remitted for retrial.

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

Predlog za dopustitev revizije se zavrne.

[JEDRO]

Predlog se zavrne.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Sodišče prve stopnje je razveljavilo sklep o izvršbi in toženi stranki naložilo plačilo 3.312,64 EUR z zakonskimi zamudnimi obrestmi, višji tožbeni zahtevek je zavrnilo. Odločilo je tudi o stroških izvršilnega in pravdnega postopka.

2. Zoper sodbo se je pritožila tožena stranka, zoper sklep o stroških pa tožeča stranka. Obe pritožbi je višje sodišče zavrnilo.

3. Predlog za dopustitev revizije vlaga tožena stranka. V predlogu za dopustitev revizije zastavi vprašanja: 1) ali je ustni dogovor o višini plačila odvetniških storitev ničen, 2) ali sta lahko sočasno sklenjena ustni in pisni dogovor o plačilu odvetniških storitev in 3) ali lahko večletna konkludentna ravnanja pravdnih strank, ki nasprotujejo sklenjenemu pisnemu dogovoru o plačilu za nagrade in stroškov za zastopanje med odvetnikom in stranko, nadomestijo ta pisni dogovor.

4. Predlog ni utemeljen.

5. Vrhovno sodišče je ocenilo, da razlogi za dopustitev revizije iz prvega odstavka 367.a člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku (v nadaljevanju ZPP) niso podani, zato je predlog zavrnilo (drugi odstavek 367.c člena ZPP).