Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSRS Sklep III DoR 54/2021-7 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2021:III.DOR.54.2021.7 AI generated

Appeal allowed regarding whether auction penalty applies to bidder who paid deposit but did not attend auction.

Case Number VSRS Sklep III DoR 54/2021-7
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 permission for a review of the second-instance judgment. The plaintiff sought the return of a 36,000 EUR deposit after failing to attend the auction following its payment. The court permitted the review specifically to determine if the contractual penalty under the auction conditions applies to a bidder who paid the deposit but did not participate in the bidding process.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 367a(1) of the Act on Civil Procedure; A review is admissible to determine whether a contractual penalty for non-attendance at an auction applies to a bidder who has paid the security deposit but did not participate in the auction.

Keywords

AI generated
auction penalty security deposit non-attendance contractual penalty review admissibility civil procedure public auction

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 367a(1) of the Act on Civil Procedure
AI generated
VDSS Sodba Pdp 201/2021
Appeal court dismisses weekly rest claim due to vague allegations preventing specific violation proof.
VDSS Sklep Pdp 567/2017
Appeal court quashes labor court judgment for remand due to failure to distinguish between admission and acknowledgment of claim.
VSL Sodba II Cpg 584/2023
Appeal dismissed; court upheld lower court ruling on debt collection in small value proceedings.
VSK sodba I Cpg 345/2007
Appeal dismissed; buyer failed to prove contract rescission due to seller's breach regarding property condition.
VSL Sodba I Cpg 812/2020
Appeal dismissed; defendant failed to prove valid reason for missing court hearing and lacked due diligence.

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 lahko sankcija plačila pogodbene kazni na podlagi 4. točka Pogojev javne dražbe in prodaje doleti tudi dražitelja, ki se po plačilu varščine javne dražbe ni udeležil.

[JEDRO]

Revizija se dopusti glede vprašanja, ali lahko sankcija plačila pogodbene kazni na podlagi 4. točka Pogojev javne dražbe in prodaje doleti tudi dražitelja, ki se po plačilu varščine javne dražbe ni udeležil.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Sodišče prve stopnje je zavrnilo zahtevek, s katerim je tožnica od toženke vtoževala vračilo plačane varščine v višini 36.000,00 EUR s pripadajočimi obrestmi.

2. Sodišče druge stopnje je pritožbo tožeče stranke zavrnilo in potrdilo sodbo sodišča prve stopnje.

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

4. Revizijsko sodišče ugotavlja, da so izpolnjeni pogoji za dopustitev revizije iz prvega odstavka 367.a člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku (v nadaljevanju ZPP) glede vprašanja, opredeljenega v izreku sklepa. Revizijo je zato glede tega dopustilo.

5. Za sprejeto odločitev sta glasovala vrhovna sodnika dr. Mile Dolec in Franc Seljak (sedmi odstavek 324. člena ZPP).