Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSRS Sklep III DoR 145/2022 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2023:III.DOR.145.2022 AI generated

Appeal allowed regarding whether the court committed a fundamental procedural violation by failing to consider the plaintiff's submission and evidence.

Case Number VSRS Sklep III DoR 145/2022
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 Slovenia allowed the appeal regarding a specific question of whether the appellate court committed a fundamental procedural violation. The lower courts dismissed the plaintiff's claim for payment and awarded costs, which the plaintiff challenged. The court found that the appellate court failed to consider the plaintiff's submission and attached evidence, meeting the threshold for a fundamental procedural violation under the Code of Civil Procedure.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 367a paragraph 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure; An appellate court commits a fundamental procedural violation if it fails to consider a party's submission and attached evidence, thereby depriving them of the opportunity to present their case.

Keywords

AI generated
fundamental procedural violation Code of Civil Procedure failure to consider evidence appeal admissibility party's submission appellate court duty civil procedure law

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 367a paragraph 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure
Article 324 paragraph 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure
AI generated
VSL Sklep II Cp 1295/2023
Appeal court quashes first-instance judgment due to failure to address claim basis and remands case for retrial.
VSM Sodba I Cp 614/2019
Appeal dismissed; insurance coverage exists because premium payment was agreed upon after contract signing per insurance policy terms.
VSL sodba III Cp 1139/2009
Court partially allows appeal on damages calculation and costs allocation in personal injury case.
VSRS sodba III Ips 16/2015
Supreme Court dismisses appeal on oral loan contract validity, citing lack of written form and missing essential terms.
VDSS sklep Pdp 1187/2012
Work injury claim dismissed due to procedural errors; case remitted for new trial on liability.

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 pritožbeno sodišče s tem, ko je ugotovilo, da tožeča stranka ni želela dopolniti svojih navedb (saj je spregledalo oz. ni upoštevalo vloge tožeče stranke z dne 12. 11. 2021 in vlogi priloženih dokaznih listin), zagrešilo bistveno kršitev pravil pravdnega postopka?

[JEDRO]

Revizija se dopusti glede vprašanja, ali je pritožbeno sodišče s tem, ko je ugotovilo, da tožeča stranka ni želela dopolniti svojih navedb (saj je spregledalo oz. ni upoštevalo vloge tožeče stranke z dne 12. 11. 2021 in vlogi priloženih dokaznih listin), zagrešilo bistveno kršitev pravil pravdnega postopka?

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Sodišče prve stopnje je zavrnilo tožbeni zahtevek za plačilo 5.490,00 EUR z zakonskimi zamudnimi obrestmi od 12. 5. 2020 (I. točka izreka) in tožeči stranki naložilo povračilo 3.047,07 EUR pravdnih stroškov tožene stranke ter 87,20 EUR pravdnih stroškov stranskega intervenienta, oboje z morebitnimi zakonskimi zamudnimi obrestmi (III. točka izreka).

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

3. Zoper sodbo sodišča druge stopnje vlaga tožeča stranka 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 v izreku opredeljenega spornega pravnega vprašanja. Revizijo je zato glede njega dopustilo.

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