Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSRS Sklep III DoR 113/2021 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2021:III.DOR.113.2021 AI generated

Supreme Court allows review to examine director's liability exemption via actual control and duty of care breach.

Case Number VSRS Sklep III DoR 113/2021
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 permitted a review of the second-instance judgment regarding a director's liability to the company. The applicant argued that the director could avoid liability under Article 263/2 of the Limited Liability Companies Act by citing actual control by a non-formal person and claimed the director's inaction constituted a breach of the duty of care. The court decided to allow the review because the specific legal questions concerning the interplay between actual control and statutory liability requirements were not sufficiently clarified in the lower court's reasoning.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 263/2 of the Limited Liability Companies Act; Article 367.a(1) of the Act on Civil Procedure Law: A review is permitted when the lower court fails to clarify whether a director's liability can be exempted based on actual control by a third party or if their inaction amounts to a breach of the duty of care.

Keywords

AI generated
director liability limited liability company duty of care actual control review admissibility breach of duty corporate governance

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 263/2 of the Limited Liability Companies Act
Article 367.a(1) of the Act on Civil Procedure Law
Article 324(7) of the Act on Civil Procedure Law
AI generated
Sklep II Ips 1217/2008
Appeal allowed; lower courts erred by rejecting evidence of substitute performance and failed to hear parties.
VSRS Sklep III Ips 50/2020
Supreme Court holds that ratification by shareholders' meeting does not exempt directors from liability for prior acts.
VSM Sodba I Cpg 224/2020
Company law claim dismissed due to statute of limitations; supervisory board's prior knowledge counts as company knowledge.
VSL Sklep I Cp 1114/2022
Appeal dismissed; weak financial status does not justify awarding costs to unsuccessful party under ZPP.
Sklep in sodba II Ips 53/2007
Supreme Court partially allowed appeal on interest statute of limitations while dismissing procedural claims regarding company alignment.

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 se lahko direktor (in lastnik) družbe z omejeno odgovornostjo svoje odgovornosti za povzročitev škode družbi na podlagi člena 263/2 ZGD-1 razbremeni s sklicevanjem na (nepojasnjeno) dejansko odločevalsko (poslovodno in upravljavsko) moč in vpliv druge osebe, ki v družbi nima nobene formalne funkcije in ali (prav) direktorjeva opustitev takšnega položaja pomeni protipravno opustitev dolžne skrbnosti direktorja in s tem njegovo odškodninsko odgovornost do družbe?

[JEDRO]

Revizija se dopusti glede vprašanja ali se lahko direktor (in lastnik) družbe z omejeno odgovornostjo svoje odgovornosti za povzročitev škode družbi na podlagi člena 263/2 ZGD-1 razbremeni s sklicevanjem na (nepojasnjeno) dejansko odločevalsko (poslovodno in upravljavsko) moč in vpliv druge osebe, ki v družbi nima nobene formalne funkcije in ali (prav) direktorjeva opustitev takšnega položaja pomeni protipravno opustitev dolžne skrbnosti direktorja in s tem njegovo odškodninsko odgovornost do družbe.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Sodišče druge stopnje je potrdilo prvostopenjsko zavrnilno sodbo glede upnikovega odškodninskega zahtevka zoper direktorja družbe na temelju četrtega odstavka 263. člena ZGD-1 v višini 34.759,56 EUR.

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).