Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSRS Sklep III DoR 97/2023 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2024:III.DOR.97.2023 AI generated

Supreme Court allows review regarding two-step trial principle and right to legal remedy when higher court sets 10% interest adjustment without first instance review.

Case Number VSRS Sklep III DoR 97/2023
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 Slovenia granted permission for a review against the second-instance judgment. The applicant argued that the higher court violated the two-step trial principle and constitutional right to legal remedy by unilaterally determining a 10% financial adjustment without prior examination at the first instance. The court ruled that these conditions for review were met because the specific legal issue regarding the adjustment's constitutionality had not been addressed in the lower proceedings.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 367.a paragraph 1 of the Act on Civil Procedure; Article 25 of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia: A review is permitted when a higher court concludes on a matter of the two-step trial principle and the right to legal remedy without prior examination at the first instance.

Keywords

AI generated
two-step trial principle right to legal remedy financial interest adjustment review permission civil procedure law

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 367.a paragraph 1 of the Act on Civil Procedure
Article 25 of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia
AI generated
VSM sodba I Cpg 539/2013
Appeal dismissed; appeal court corrected service of judgment date for enforcement period start. Appeal dismissed; appeal court corrected service of judgment date for enforcement period start.
VSL sodba I Cpg 157/2011
Appeal dismissed; liability limit in liability insurance contract overrides general terms excluding gross negligence.
Sodba II Ips 789/2007
Supreme Court dismisses appeal on tort damages for non-pecuniary loss, upholding lower courts' valuation of pain and suffering.
VSRS Sklep II DoR 607/2019
Supreme Court allows appeal regarding the legality of the court's assessment of the statute of limitations objection.
VSC Sodba I Cpg 85/2022
Appeal dismissed; small claims court waived oral hearing due to lack of explicit request and defendant's refusal. Appeal dismissed; small claims court waived oral hearing due to lack of explicit request and defendant's refusal. Appeal dismissed; small claims court waived oral hearing due to lack of explicit request and defendant's refusal.

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 skladna z načelom dvostopenjskega sojenja in ustavno pravico do pravnega sredstva strank (25. člen Ustave RS) presoja višjega sodišča, ki je samo, brez predhodne obravnave tega vprašanja na prvi stopnji sojenja, zaključilo, da višina finančnega popravka znaša 10 %?

[JEDRO]

Revizija se dopusti glede vprašanja: Ali je skladna z načelom dvostopenjskega sojenja in ustavno pravico do pravnega sredstva strank (25. člen Ustave RS) presoja višjega sodišča, ki je samo, brez predhodne obravnave tega vprašanja na prvi stopnji sojenja, zaključilo, da višina finančnega popravka znaša 10 %?

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Sodišče prve stopnje je ugodilo tožbenemu zahtevku za plačilo 1.725.583,00 EUR z zakonskimi zamudnimi obrestmi od 31. 12. 2015 dalje do plačila (I. točka izreka) ter zavrnilo tožbeni zahtevek za plačilo 304.514,64 EUR z zakonskimi zamudnimi obrestmi in za plačilo zakonskih zamudnih obresti od prisojenega zneska zahtevanimi pred 30. 12. 2015 (II. točka izreka). Tožeči stranki je naložilo plačilo pravdnih stroškov tožene stranke, ki bodo odmerjeni s posebnim sklepom (III. točka izreka).

2. Sodišče druge stopnje je v upoštevnem delu delno ugodilo pritožbi tožeče stranke in sodbo sodišča prve stopnje v II. točki izreka spremenilo tako, da je ugodilo tudi zahtevku za plačilo 304.514,64 EUR z zakonskimi zamudnimi obrestmi od 18. 8. 2014 in zahtevku za plačilo zakonskih zamudnih obresti od zneska 1.725.583,00 od 18. 8. 2014 do 30. 12. 2015 (I. točka izreka). Pritožbo tožene stranke proti I. in III. točki izreka izpodbijane sodbe sodišča prve stopnje je zavrnilo in v tem delu izpodbijano sodbo potrdilo (III. točka izreka).

3. Zoper sodbo sodišča druge stopnje vlaga tožena stranka 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 (ZPP) glede vprašanja, opredeljenega v izreku sklepa. Revizijo je zato v tem obsegu dopustilo.

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