Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSRS Sklep III DoR 116/2022 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2022:III.DOR.116.2022 AI generated

Supreme Court allows review to determine if the claimant has active standing to recover costs from the insured.

Case Number VSRS Sklep III DoR 116/2022
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 the Republic of Slovenia granted the request for leave to appeal regarding the legal standing of the claimant. The lower courts upheld a judgment awarding the claimant approximately 32,445 EUR in costs incurred by the insured against the defendant. The court determined that the conditions for allowing the review are met to examine the material legality of the lower courts' decision on standing.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 367a paragraph 1 of the Act on Civil Procedure; The Supreme Court may grant leave for appeal when the lower courts' decision on the existence of active standing of the claimant requires a final ruling on the material legality of that standing.

Keywords

AI generated
active standing costs recovery insurance contract civil procedure leave for appeal investor status contractual rights

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 367a paragraph 1 of the Act on Civil Procedure (ZPP)
Article 324 paragraph 7 of the Act on Civil Procedure (ZPP)
AI generated
Sodba III Ips 20/2014
Appeal dismissed; new claim on currency and competition law in appeal violates procedural rules.
VSL Sodba I Cpg 676/2020
Appeal dismissed; court held non-property damage tax payments were not legally required by the plaintiff.
Sklep II Ips 248/2010
Supreme Court allows appeal due to insufficient explanation of passive standing for a minor co-defendant.
Sklep II Ips 699/2008
Appeal rejected because the disputed amount of 3,755.63 EUR did not exceed the statutory threshold for review.
VSRS Sklep II DoR 280/2017
Supreme Court dismisses review application as statutory admissibility conditions under ZPP are not met.

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 je odločitev nižjih sodišč, da v obravnavanem primeru, upoštevajoč vse okoliščine primera, obstoji aktivna legitimacija tožeče stranke (kot investitorja oziroma naročnika del) za izterjavo stroškov za dela, ki jih je izvajal zavarovanec tožene stranke, materialnopravno pravilna?

[JEDRO]

Revizija se dopusti glede vprašanja, ali je odločitev nižjih sodišč, da v obravnavanem primeru, upoštevajoč vse okoliščine primera, obstoji aktivna legitimacija tožeče stranke (kot investitorja oziroma naročnika del) za izterjavo stroškov za dela, ki jih je izvajal zavarovanec tožene stranke, materialnopravno pravilna.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Sodišče druge stopnje je zavrnilo pritožbo in potrdilo sodbo sodišča prve stopnje v delu, kjer je to ugodilo tožbenemu zahtevku za plačilo 32.445,51 EUR s pripadki.

2. Zoper sodbo sodišča druge stopnje vlaga tožena 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).