Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSRS Sklep III DoR 116/2021 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2021:III.DOR.116.2021 AI generated

Supreme Court dismisses appeal admissibility request due to failure to meet statutory review conditions under ZPP.

Case Number VSRS Sklep III DoR 116/2021
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court of Slovenia rejected the applicant's request for permission to file an appeal against the second-instance judgment. The lower court had partially modified the original verdict regarding interest payments and damages for cable retransmission and civil penalties. The Supreme Court denied the request because the specific conditions required to allow a review under the Code of Civil Procedure were not met.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

367.a ZPP; 367.c ZPP: A request for permission to appeal is inadmissible if the applicant fails to demonstrate that the lower court's decision violates the law or contains a significant error justifying a review.

Keywords

AI generated
permission to appeal admissibility of appeal Code of Civil Procedure review conditions supreme court decision

Cited Legislation

AI generated
367.a ZPP
367.c ZPP
324. ZPP
AI generated
VSRS Sklep III DoR 33/2022
Supreme Court allows appeal regarding correct application of law on start time of statutory interest periods.
VSRS Sklep III DoR 11/2022
Supreme Court allows review regarding the start date of statutory interest in a debt dispute.
VSL sodba I Cpg 366/2013
Appeal dismissed; collective agreement parties must agree on one tariff; monthly reporting obligation not yet due.
VDSS Sodba Pdp 521/2020
Specialization termination due to health issues is valid; appeal dismissed for lack of procedural violations.
VSC sodba Cp 640/2011
Appeal dismissed; plaintiff failed to prove payment of remaining purchase price via witness testimony.

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

Predlog se zavrne.

[JEDRO]

Ker niso izpolnjeni pogoji za dopustitev revizije iz 367.a člena ZPP, je Vrhovno sodišče na podlagi drugega odstavka 367.c člena ZPP predlog tožene stranke zavrnilo.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Sodišče druge stopnje je v delu, ki je relevanten za odločanje o predlogu za dopustitev revizije, pritožbi delno ugodilo in prvostopenjsko sodbo:

- v izpodbijani IV. točki izreka v celoti spremenilo tako, da mora tožena stranka tožeči stranki plačati zakonske zamudne obresti od zneska 94.088,60 EUR od 30. 12. 2016 do 2. 11. 2020;

- v izpodbijani V. točki izreka delno spremenilo tako, da mora tožena stranka plačati tožeči stranki: 15.306,62 EUR s pripadki iz naslova nadomestila za kabelsko retransmisijo glasbe v televizijskih programih tožene stranke v letu 2015 in 10.939,52 EUR s pripadki iz naslova civilne kazni.

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

3. Ker niso izpolnjeni pogoji za dopustitev revizije iz 367.a člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku (ZPP), je Vrhovno sodišče na podlagi drugega odstavka 367.c člena ZPP predlog tožene stranke zavrnilo.

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