Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSRS Sklep II DoR 338/2018 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2018:II.DOR.338.2018 AI generated

Supreme Court dismisses review application as statutory conditions for admissibility were not met.

Case Number VSRS Sklep II DoR 338/2018
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 defendant's application for permission to file a review against the second-instance judgment. The defendant argued that a brokerage agreement was void due to lack of consent and questioned the credibility of witnesses, but the court found no merit in these claims. Consequently, the court determined that the specific conditions outlined in Article 367.a of the Civil Procedure Act were not satisfied, leading to the dismissal of the review request.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 367.a of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 367.c of the Civil Procedure Act: A review application is inadmissible if the applicant fails to demonstrate that the lower court's decision contains a significant error of law or fact that would likely change the outcome.

Keywords

AI generated
Civil Procedure Act review application admissibility conditions brokerage agreement void contract witness credibility Supreme Court

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 367.a of the Civil Procedure Act
Article 367.c of the Civil Procedure Act
AI generated
VSL Sklep I Cpg 548/2024
Appeal allowed; employer liability to health fund requires fault, not objective liability, leading to remand.
VSL sodba II Cp 3229/2011
Court allows partial appeal on blank bill enforcement, ruling claim arises only upon fulfillment per Negotiable Instruments Act.
VSL sodba I Cpg 965/2009
Appeal dismissed; defendant must bear costs for filing an unsupported statute of limitations objection.
VSL Sodba I Cp 17/2018
Appeal dismissed; small claims court cannot review factual findings on payment allocations.
VSL sklep I Cp 3667/2011
Appeal court vacates first instance judgment for invalid management contract due to erroneous application of statute regarding signature dates.

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 se zavrne.

[JEDRO]

Pogoji iz 367.a člena ZPP za dopustitev revizije niso izpolnjeni.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Sodišče prve stopnje je odločilo, da ostane sklep o izvršbi VL 108416/2015 z dne 18. 9. 2015 v veljavi tako, da mora toženec plačati tožnici 2.520,00 EUR z zakonskimi zamudnimi obrestmi. Odločilo je, da je toženec dolžan tožnici povrniti 1.326,43 EUR pravdnih stroškov z zakonskimi zamudnimi obrestmi.

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

3. Zoper sodbo sodišča druge stopnje je toženec vložil predlog za dopustitev revizije in predlagal dopustitev revizije glede naslednjih pravnih vprašanj:

- Ali je pravilen zaključek sodišča druge stopnje glede veljavnosti pogodbe o posredovanju ob upoštevanju, da pogodbe ni podpisal zastopnik tožeče stranke?

- Ali predstavlja dopis z dne 18. 4. 2015, ki ga je toženec posredoval tožeči stranki, odstop od pogodbe?

Predlagatelj meni, da je pogodba o posredovanju nična, ker ni prišlo do soglasja volj. Ne strinja se z ugotovitvijo, da toženec ni odpovedal pogodbe o posredovanju. Ravno tako se ne strinja z oceno verodostojnosti prič.

4. Predlog ni utemeljen.

5. Predpostavke za dopustitev revizije iz prvega odstavka 367.a člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku niso izpolnjene. Skladno z določbo drugega odstavka 367.c člena istega zakona je zato Vrhovno sodišče predlog zavrnilo.