Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSRS Sklep III DoR 169/2020 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2021:III.DOR.169.2020 AI generated

Supreme Court allows review regarding whether a plaintiff must prove their own loss in unjust enrichment claims.

Case Number VSRS Sklep III DoR 169/2020
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 granted the review request specifically concerning the requirement for a plaintiff to prove their own loss in an unjust enrichment case. The lower court had dismissed the claim for 12,000 EUR, and the appellant argued that the first-instance court erred by not requiring proof of the plaintiff's detriment. The court decided to allow the review because the first-instance court's stance on this specific evidentiary requirement constitutes a question of law suitable for appellate scrutiny.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Zakon o pravdnem postopku (ZPP) 367.a odst. 1; Review is permitted regarding whether a plaintiff must prove their own loss in an unjust enrichment claim between owner and non-owner.

Keywords

AI generated
unjust enrichment plaintiff's loss evidentiary burden review admissibility ZPP 367.a property rights civil procedure

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Zakon o pravdnem postopku (ZPP) 367.a odst. 1
Zakon o pravdnem postopku (ZPP) 324. odst. 7
AI generated
VSRS Sklep III DoR 94/2020
Supreme Court dismisses appeal permission request due to unpaid court fee during statutory court holidays.
VSRS Sklep II DoR 442/2018
Supreme Court dismisses appeal permission request due to forged power of attorney lacking validity date. The court rejected the request because the power of attorney was not new. The court ruled that the power of attorney was not new because it was forged. The court dismissed the appeal permission request because the power of attorney was not new. The court rejected the request because the power of attorney was not new. The court dismissed the appeal permission request because the power of attorney was not new.
Sklep III DoR 119/2010
Supreme Court dismisses review application regarding debt assumption and statute of limitations under German law.
Sklep III DoR 42/2012
Appeal dismissed partially; Supreme Court allows review regarding procedural violation on claim amount.
VSRS sklep II DoR 297/2015
Supreme Court dismisses appeal request due to lack of lawyer qualification and low-value dispute. Appeal request rejected for missing bar exam proof and low-value case. Court rules appeal inadmissible without lawyer qualification or bar exam proof. Dismissed appeal request due to missing lawyer qualification and low-value dispute. Appeal rejected for missing bar exam proof and low-value case. Appeal request dismissed for missing lawyer qualification and low-value dispute.

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 je v okoliščinah konkretnega primera, ko gre za zahtevek iz naslova neupravičene uporabe nepremičnine v razmerju lastnik – nelastnik, pravilno stališče sodišča druge stopnje, da bi morala tožeča stranka, da bi uspela s tožbenim zahtevkom, zatrjevati in dokazati tudi svoje prikrajšanje?

[JEDRO]

Revizija se dopusti glede vprašanja: ali je v okoliščinah konkretnega primera, ko gre za zahtevek iz naslova neupravičene uporabe nepremičnine v razmerju lastnik - nelastnik, pravilno stališče sodišča druge stopnje, da bi morala tožeča stranka, da bi uspela s tožbenim zahtevkom, zatrjevati in dokazati tudi svoje prikrajšanje.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Sodišče druge stopnje je v delu, ki je relevanten za odločanje o predlogu za dopustitev revizije, pritožbi ugodilo in spremenilo sodbo sodišča prve stopnje tako, da je zavrnilo tožbeni zahtevek za plačilo 12.000,00 EUR z zakonskimi zamudnimi obrestmi od 5. 7. 2018 naprej.

2. Zoper sodbo sodišča druge stopnje vlaga tožeča stranka predlog za dopustitev revizije.

3. 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.

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