Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSRS Sklep III DoR 51/2021 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2021:III.DOR.51.2021 AI generated

Supreme Court allows review to determine if Article 481 of the Company Law applies to universal succession in asset separation.

Case Number VSRS Sklep III DoR 51/2021
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia granted the request for leave to appeal regarding a specific legal question. The first-instance court dismissed the claim to exclude a partner from a company, while the second-instance court reversed this decision and ordered the exclusion. The Supreme Court found the conditions for review met under the Code of Civil Procedure. Consequently, the review is permitted to clarify whether Article 481 of the Company Law applies to universal succession in this context.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 367.a paragraph 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure; Article 481 of the Company Law: The Supreme Court permits a review to determine the applicability of pre-emptive right provisions to universal succession in cases of asset separation involving a takeover company.

Keywords

AI generated
Code of Civil Procedure leave to appeal universal succession asset separation pre-emptive right company law takeover company

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 367.a paragraph 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure
Article 481 of the Company Law
Article 324 paragraph 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure
AI generated
VSRS Sodba III Ips 32/2021
Supreme Court holds that a company agreement requiring partner consent applies to asset separation even without sale.
VSL Sklep IV Cpg 630/2021
Appeal dismissed; company bylaws define exclusion process sufficiently for court registry entry.
VSL Sodba I Cpg 951/2017
Appeal partially allowed; minor fee calculation error reversed; main exit claim upheld.
VSL Sklep I Cpg 103/2023
Appeal allowed; court held that sending a legal response to the wrong court within the deadline constitutes obvious mistake under ZPP. The court ruled that the appeal was valid because the lower court issued a default judgment despite the timely submission of the response to the wrong court. The court decided the appeal was valid because the lower court erred by issuing a default judgment when the response was sent to the wrong court within the deadline. The court held that the appeal was valid because the lower court erred by issuing a default judgment when the response was sent to the wrong court within the deadline. The court decided the appeal was valid because the lower court erred by issuing a default judgment when the response was sent to the wrong court within the deadline.
VSM Sklep I Cpg 6/2020
Appeal allowed; court found procedural violation regarding evidence and trust breach grounds for shareholder exclusion.

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 v primeru oddelitve s prevzemom, ki predstavlja vložek v prevzemno družbo, ki je v njo vnesen z univerzalnim pravnim nasledstvom, uporabijo določila 481. člena ZGD-1, ki urejajo predkupno pravico.

[JEDRO]

Revizija se dopusti glede vprašanja, ali se lahko v primeru oddelitve s prevzemom, ki predstavlja vložek v prevzemno družbo, ki je v njo vnesen z univerzalnim pravnim nasledstvom, uporabijo določila 481. člena ZGD-1, ki urejajo predkupno pravico.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Sodišče prve stopnje je v relevantnem delu zavrnilo tožbeni zahtevek za izključitev tožene stranke iz družbe A. d. o. o. (II. točka izreka) ter tožeči stranki naložilo povračilo celotnih stroškov postopka tožene stranke (III. točka izreka).

2. Sodišče druge stopnje je ugodilo pritožbi tožeče stranke in sodbo sodišča prve stopnje spremenilo v II. točki izreka tako, da je ugodilo tožbenemu zahtevku in toženo stranko kot družbenika izključilo iz družbe A. d. o. o. (prva alineja I. točke izreka), v III. točki izreka pa tako, da je toženi stranki naložilo povračilo stroškov postopka tožeče stranke v znesku 2.236,52 EUR z morebitnimi zakonskimi obrestmi (druga alineja I. točke izreka) ter odločilo, da tožena stranka sama nosi stroške odgovora na pritožbo, dolžna pa je tožeči stranki povrniti njene pritožbene stroške v znesku 375,00 EUR (II. točka izreka).

3. Tožena stranka zoper sodbo sodišča druge stopnje vlaga predlog za dopustitev revizije.

4. Vrhovno sodišče ugotavlja, da so izpolnjeni pogoji za dopustitev revizije iz prvega odstavka 367.a člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku glede vprašanja, opredeljenega v izreku sklepa. Revizijo je zato v tem obsegu dopustilo.

5. Vrhovno sodišče je odločitev sprejelo soglasno (sedmi odstavek 324. člena ZPP).