Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSL Sklep I Cpg 956/2018 ECLI:SI:VSLJ:2019:I.CPG.956.2018 AI generated

Appeal withdrawn before judgment; court notes withdrawal and terminates proceedings per CPLP Art. 334(2).

Case Number VSL Sklep I Cpg 956/2018
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The appellate court terminated the proceedings after the appellants withdrew their appeal before a judgment was issued. The appellants, R. K. and R. O., had filed an appeal against a first-instance decision regarding monetary claims and subsequently requested withdrawal and a refund of court fees, citing an out-of-court settlement. The court ruled that since the withdrawal occurred prior to the issuance of a decision, it merely noted the withdrawal and ended the process, while declining to address the fee refund as it lacked jurisdiction.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Art. 334(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure; An appeal withdrawn before the court issues a decision is noted and the proceedings are terminated, without the court ruling on ancillary requests like fee refunds.

Keywords

AI generated
withdrawal of appeal termination of proceedings Code of Civil Procedure court fees refund out-of-court settlement jurisdictional limitation appellate review

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Art. 334(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure
AI generated
VSL sklep III Cp 853/05
Court allows appeal, revokes first instance ruling, and remands case for re-evaluation of enforcement interest.
Sklep II Ips 595/2006
Appeal dismissed as late because appeal was addressed to wrong court, not obvious mistake.
VSL Sodba I Cp 1914/2019
Appeal dismissed; plaintiff's lack of exam knowledge meant defendant wasn't liable for breach of contract.
VDSS sklep Psp 26/2010
Appeal dismissed; plaintiff failed to prove claim existence or risk of asset dissipation for interim order.
VSC sodba Cp 725/2009
Appeal dismissed; court requires factual basis for nullity claims under contract law.

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

Umik pritožbe z dne 28. 3. 2019 se vzame na znanje in se postopek konča.

[JEDRO]

Ker sta pritožnici umaknili že vloženo pritožbo, preden je pritožbeno sodišče izdalo odločbo, je pritožbeno sodišče umik pritožbe le še vzelo na znanje in postopek ustavilo.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Prvostopenjsko sodišče je z izpodbijano sodbo in sklepom z dne 26. 6. 2018 odločilo o zahtevkih na plačilo različnih denarnih zneskov in o ustavitvi postopka.

2. Pritožbo sta 8. 10. 2019 vložila 1. in 5. toženka, to pa sta R. K. in R. O. Na pritožbeno sodišče sta R. K. in R. O. 28. 3. 2019 poslali vlogo: "Umik pritožbe in zahteva za vračilo sodne takse". V njej sta obvestili, da sta sklenili zunajsodno poravnavo in na njenem temelju plačali dogovorjeni znesek. Navedli sta še, da je bilo dogovorjeno, da vsaka stranka nosi svoje stroške pritožbenega postopka. Zahtevali sta tudi vračilo sodne takse.

3. Ker sta pritožnici umaknili že vloženo pritožbo, preden je pritožbeno sodišče izdalo odločbo, je pritožbeno sodišče s tem sklepom umik pritožbe le še vzelo na znanje in postopek ustavilo. Pravni temelj za takšno odločitev je v drugem. odstavku 334. člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku.

4. O vrnitvi sodne takse pritožbeno sodišče ni odločalo, ker za to ni pristojno.