Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSRS Sklep III DoR 36/2025 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2025:III.DOR.36.2025 AI generated

Supreme Court dismisses review application because review is mandatory against second-instance rulings under ZPP. The court rejected the request for permission to appeal a dismissed claim. Since the law mandates review against second-instance rulings, a separate permission request is unnecessary and thus inadmissible.

Case Number VSRS Sklep III DoR 36/2025
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 dismissed the applicant's request for permission to file a review against the second-instance court's decision. The second-instance court had rejected the plaintiff's claim for payment and ordered the plaintiff to cover litigation costs. The Supreme Court ruled that because the law mandates review against all second-instance rulings, a separate request for permission is legally redundant and therefore rejected.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Tretji odstavek 384. člena ZPP; 377. člen ZPP: Revizija je zoper sklep sodišča druge stopnje vedno dovoljena, zato predlog za dopustitev revizije ni dovoljen in se zavrne.

Keywords

AI generated
mandatory review second instance permission to appeal ZPP review redundant application litigation costs dismissed claim

Cited Legislation

AI generated
384. člen ZPP
377. člen ZPP

Cited Case Law

AI generated
II DoR 424/2018
Appeal against a default judgment is always admissible; a separate petition for leave to appeal is inadmissible.
II DoR 381/2022
Appeal against second-instance dismissal rejected; review always allowed per law, making pre-approval request inadmissible.
II DoR 243/2023
Supreme Court dismisses appeal permission request against a rejected appeal as it is already admissible by law.
II DoR 491/2023
Supreme Court dismisses review admissibility request because appeal is automatically reviewable under law.
AI generated
VSM Sodba I Cpg 42/2020
Appeal dismissed; claimant must prove direct causal link between tort and loss, not just foreseeability of loss. Court rejected lost profit claim due to lack of objective foreseeability. Claimant failed to establish direct causal link between tort and lost profit. Court held foreseeability of loss differs from foreseeability of lost profit. Claimant failed to prove direct causal link between tort and lost profit. Court ruled lost profit not objectively foreseeable from accident. Claimant failed to prove direct causal link between tort and lost profit. Court held lost profit not objectively foreseeable from accident. Claimant failed to prove direct causal link between tort and lost profit. Court ruled lost profit not objectively foreseeable from accident.
VSL sklep I Cpg 1301/2010
Appeal allowed; first instance court wrongly rejected commission claim due to incorrect application of insurance intermediary law.
VSL sodba I Cpg 1135/2012
Court dismisses appeal confirming first instance judgment on construction contract damages and procedural completeness.
VSK Sodba I Cp 253/2022
Court dismisses cyclist's appeal against truck driver, upholding liability based on duty of care and lack of visibility.
VSC sodba Cpg 37/2017
Subcontractor awarded claim against owner for breach of payment guarantee obligation under public procurement law.

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 zavrže.

[JEDRO]

Zoper sklep, s katerim je sodišče druge stopnje zavrglo pritožbo, je vselej dovoljena revizija (tretji odstavek 384. člena ZPP). Ker je torej revizija zoper izpodbijani sklep dovoljena že po samem zakonu, predlog za dopustitev revizije ni dovoljen, zato ga je Vrhovno sodišče ob smiselni uporabi 377. člena ZPP zavrglo.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Sodišče prve stopnje je zavrnilo tožbeni zahtevek za plačilo 41.097,95 EUR s pripadajočimi zakonskimi zamudnimi obrestmi. Tožeči stranki je naložilo povrnitev pravdnih stroškov tožene stranke v višini 2.134,59 EUR.

2. Sodišče druge stopnje je pritožbo tožeče stranke zavrglo in ji naložilo povrnitev pritožbenih stroškov tožene stranke v višini 746,64 EUR.

3. Zoper sodbo sodišča druge stopnje vlaga tožeča stranka predlog za dopustitev revizije.

4. Predlog ni dovoljen.

5. Zoper sklep, s katerim je sodišče druge stopnje zavrglo pritožbo, je vselej dovoljena revizija (tretji odstavek 384. člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku, v nadaljevanju ZPP). Ker je torej revizija zoper izpodbijani sklep dovoljena že po samem zakonu, predlog za dopustitev revizije ni dovoljen, 1 zato ga je Vrhovno sodišče ob smiselni uporabi 377. člena ZPP zavrglo.

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

1 Npr. sklepi Vrhovnega sodišča RS II DoR 424/2018 z dne 10. 12. 2018, II DoR 381/2022 z dne 5. 10. 2022, II DoR 243/2023 z dne 16. 11. 2023, II DoR 491/2023 z dne 25. 1. 2024. Glej tudi N. Betetto, O nekaterih vprašanjih dopuščene revizije po ZPP-E, Odvetnik, 92 (2019), str. 7.