Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSRS Sklep II DoR 240/2020 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2020:II.DOR.240.2020 AI generated

Supreme Court dismisses appeal permission request due to failure to meet Article 367a ZPP conditions.

Case Number VSRS Sklep II DoR 240/2020
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 appeal the second-instance judgment. The applicant argued that a tort occurred and sought to prove the causal link and extent of non-pecuniary damages, while the lower courts had previously dismissed the claim for payment. The court denied the request because the applicant failed to satisfy the specific admissibility criteria set forth in Article 367a of the Civil Procedure Act.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 367a of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 367c, paragraph 2 of the Civil Procedure Act: A request for permission to appeal is inadmissible if the applicant does not demonstrate that the lower court's decision violates the law or contains a significant error affecting the outcome.

Keywords

AI generated
permission to appeal civil procedure act non-pecuniary damages tort liability admissibility criteria supreme court review causal link

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 367a of the Civil Procedure Act
Article 367c, paragraph 2 of the Civil Procedure Act
Article 324, paragraph 7 of the Civil Procedure Act
AI generated
VSL Sodba I Cpg 902/2018
Appeal dismissed; court upheld first instance ruling on insurance claim value based on market price excluding fictitious transactions.
Sklep III DoR 55/2012
Appeal partially allowed; Supreme Court permits review for procedural violations regarding fact-finding and document interpretation.
VSL Sodba in sklep I Cp 1161/2023
Bankruptcy court dismisses claim for legal fees incurred before bankruptcy due to lack of prior declaration.
VSL Sodba in sklep II Cpg 161/2021
Court allows insurance company's claim for franchise deduction against tenant, dismissing landlord's counterclaim.
VSRS Sklep II DoR 459/2021
Supreme Court dismisses revision request as no important legal question was raised regarding compensation for registry deletion.

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]

Predlog se zavrne.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Sodišče prve stopnje je v delu, relevantnem za odločanje o predlogu za dopustitev revizije, zavrnilo tožbeni zahtevek za plačilo 288.394,56 EUR z zakonskimi zamudnimi obrestmi od 12. 6. 2017 do plačila.

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

3. Zoper sodbo sodišča druge stopnje tožeča stranka vlaga predlog za dopustitev revizije in postavlja naslednje vprašanje: »Ali je v konkretnem primeru nastal škodni dogodek (protipravno ravnanje) in posledično, kako se dokazuje vzročna zveza in obseg nastale nepremoženjske škode. Odškodninska odgovornost je zakonska obveznost, glede katere so določene zakonske predpostavke.«

4. Predlog ni utemeljen.

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

6. Senat je odločitev sprejel soglasno (sedmi odstavek 324. člena ZPP).