Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSM Sodba I Cp 87/2021 ECLI:SI:VSMB:2021:I.CP.87.2021 AI generated

Small claims court appeal dismissed; tenant's failure to return TV equipment after contract termination creates debt obligation.

Case Number VSM Sodba I Cp 87/2021
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The appeal court rejected the tenant's challenge to the first-instance judgment ordering payment for returned television equipment. The tenant argued she could not pay due to financial hardship and claimed the equipment remained in her safe house, but the court found the equipment was accepted and left with her after a failed installation. Consequently, the court ruled that the tenant's debt for the equipment's value and interest stands, as the failure to return the items after contract termination is a clear breach of agreement.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

ZPP 458. odst. 1; ZPP 339. odst. 2: In small claims proceedings, appeals are limited to fundamental procedural violations or misapplication of substantive law, excluding mere disputes over factual findings or financial inability to pay.

Keywords

AI generated
small claims procedure contract termination equipment return debt obligation appeal limitations procedural review tenant liability

Cited Legislation

AI generated
ZPP 458. odst. 1
ZPP 339. odst. 2
ZPP 353.
AI generated
VSC Sodba Cp 438/2020
Appeal dismissed; court upheld first-instance ruling on co-ownership management decisions via written list. The court rejected the argument that a written list requires assembly approval. The court ruled that a valid written list under SZ-1 does not need assembly ratification. The court found the first-instance court correctly applied the law regarding co-ownership management decisions. The court dismissed the appeal and awarded costs to the appellant. The court held that written list decisions are binding without assembly approval. The court confirmed the first-instance judgment on co-ownership management disputes. The court rejected the claim that assembly approval is mandatory for written lists. The court affirmed the lower court's finding on valid written list decisions. The court dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to pay costs.
VSL Sodba II Cp 2200/2019
Appeal dismissed; manager active legitimized for operational costs without contract if paid from own funds.
VSL Sklep II Cp 2133/2018
Court vacates appeal judgment on bill of exchange due to unproven oral demand under Civil Procedure Code.
VSL sodba I Cp 234/2009
Small claims appeal dismissed; statute of limitations applies to administrator's expense claims regardless of contract type.
VSL Sodba II Cp 1720/2018
Appeal dismissed; court upheld first-instance judgment on unpaid work and procedural costs under Slovenian 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

Pritožba se zavrne in potrdi sodba sodišča prve stopnje.

[JEDRO]

Spor majhne vrednosti.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Z izpodbijano sodbo je sodišče v postopku po pravilih postopka v sporih majhne vrednosti razsodilo, da je tožena stranka dolžna tožeči stranki iz naslova opreme za televizijski sprejem plačati 205,48 EUR z zakonskimi zamudnimi obrestmi od 23. 1. 2020 dalje do plačila ter ji povrniti pravdne stroške v višini 427,32 EUR z zakonskimi zamudnimi obrestmi v primeru plačilne zamude.

2. Prvostopno sodbo s pritožbo izpodbija tožena stranka. Pritožbenega razloga ne navaja. V pritožbi zatrjuje, da opreme za TV sprejem ni sprejela oziroma je le-ta ostala v stanovanju po njenem odhodu v varno hišo. Obveznosti in stroškov ni sposobna plačati. Predlaga ugodno rešitev pritožbe.

3. Pritožba ni utemeljena.

4. Po določbi prvega odstavka 458. člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku (v nadaljevanju ZPP) se sodba, s katero je končan spor v postopku v sporih majhne vrednosti, lahko izpodbija samo zaradi bistvene kršitve določb pravdnega postopka iz drugega odstavka 339. člena ZPP in zaradi zmotne uporabe materialnega prava. Pritožbeni razlog, da toženka opreme ni zadržala in da je ni vrnila tožeči stranki po prekinitvi pogodbenega razmerja, predstavlja pritožbeni razlog zmotne oziroma nepopolne ugotovitve dejanskega stanja, ki pa v navedenem sporu v skladu s citirano določbo ni dopusten. V kolikor pa pritožba presoji prvostopnega sodišča o nevrnitvi opreme očita protispisnost in s tem povezano bistveno kršitev določb postopka pa velja dodati, da je prevzem opreme (vmesnik za televizijo, dodatni vmesnik za televizijo, kombinirani modem) toženka potrdila s prevzemnim zapisnikom (priloga A4) ter z zapisnikom (priloga A8), iz katerega izhaja, da je bila zaradi neuspešne realizacije priklopa oprema puščena pri stranki, to je toženki. Da pa po prekinitvi naročniške pogodbe navedena oprema ni bila vrnjena tožeči stranki, kot je bilo pogodbeno dogovorjeno, pa ni sporno. Tožena stranka je tako iz razloga, ker po prekinitvi naročniške pogodbe navedene opreme za TV sprejem ni vrnila, dolžna tožeči stranki plačati njeno protivrednost v znesku 205,48 EUR s pripadajočimi zakonskimi zamudnimi obrestmi. Pritožbena izvajanja v smeri slabih socialnih in s tem povezanih plačilnih zmožnostih tožnice pa za obravnavano presojo niso upoštevna.

5. Odločitev pritožbenega sodišča temelji na določbi 353. člena ZPP.

6. Pritožbeni stroški niso priglašeni.