Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSRS Sklep III DoR 67/2025 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2025:III.DOR.67.2025 AI generated

Supreme Court allows review regarding allocation of burden of proof for economic unreasonableness of asset purchase.

Case Number VSRS Sklep III DoR 67/2025
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 granted permission for a review of the second-instance judgment regarding the allocation of the burden of proof. The lower courts ruled that the plaintiff company, rather than the defendant as a managing entity, bore the burden to prove the economic unreasonableness of purchasing an asset deemed valueless. The court decided to allow the review because the conditions set forth in Article 367.a of the Act on Civil Procedure Law were met for this specific legal question.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 367.a of the Act on Civil Procedure Law; The Supreme Court may permit a review when the lower courts incorrectly allocated the burden of proof regarding the economic unreasonableness of a transaction between a legal entity and its managing person.

Keywords

AI generated
burden of proof allocation economic unreasonableness managing entity liability civil procedure law review permission asset purchase validity corporate governance

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 367.a of the Act on Civil Procedure Law
Article 324, paragraph 7 of the Act on Civil Procedure Law
AI generated
Sklep III DoR 77/2012
Appeal allowed regarding whether public procurement law affects contract validity in a specific case.
VSRS sklep II Ips 35/2014
Supreme Court allows review, quashing lower court decisions on medical malpractice causation and damages allocation.
VSRS Sklep II DoR 346/2020
Supreme Court dismisses appeal permission request due to failure to meet Article 367a ZPP conditions.
Sklep II DoR 155/2010
Supreme Court allows review regarding right to participate and mandatory invalidity assessment of insurance terms.
Sodba II Ips 74/2011
Appeal dismissed; parties contractually waived unjust enrichment claims for early lease termination by tenant's choice.

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 sta sodišči prve in druge stopnje pravilno uporabili materialno pravo in pravila o dokaznem bremenu, ko sta presodili, da nosi dokazno breme glede ekonomske (ne)smiselnosti nakupa sredstva, ki naj bi bilo brez vrednosti, tožnik (družba), in ne toženec kot poslovodna oseba?

[JEDRO]

Revizija se dopusti glede vprašanja: Ali sta sodišči prve in druge stopnje pravilno uporabili materialno pravo in pravila o dokaznem bremenu, ko sta presodili, da nosi dokazno breme glede ekonomske (ne)smiselnosti nakupa sredstva, ki naj bi bilo brez vrednosti, tožnik (družba), in ne toženec kot poslovodna oseba?

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Sodišče prve stopnje je v delu, relevantnem za odločanje o predlogu za dopustitev revizije, zavrnilo tožbeni zahtevek za plačilo 50.691,00 EUR s pripadajočimi zakonskimi zamudnimi obrestmi.

2. Sodišče druge stopnje je v delu, relevantnem za odločanje o predlogu za dopustitev revizije, pritožbo tožeče stranke zavrnilo in potrdilo sodbo sodišča prve stopnje.

3. Zoper sodbo sodišča druge stopnje vlaga tožeča 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 (v nadaljevanju 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).