Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Sklep III DoR 43/2009 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2010:III.DOR.43.2009 AI generated

Supreme Court allows appeal regarding start date of one-year deadline under Article 425 of Civil Procedure Act.

Case Number Sklep III DoR 43/2009
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 the leave to appeal against the second instance court's rejection of the plaintiff's request to continue a suspended legal proceeding. The core dispute concerned whether the one-year deadline under Article 425 of the Civil Procedure Act commenced upon the publication of the company's deletion in the Official Gazette or the actual date of deletion. The court ruled that the plaintiff's argument distinguishing this case from a prior lower court decision was valid and legally sound.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 425 of the Civil Procedure Act; The one-year deadline for continuing a suspended proceeding commences on the day of the actual deletion of the company from the register, not the day of its publication in the Official Gazette.

Keywords

AI generated
Civil Procedure Act suspended proceeding statute of limitations Official Gazette company deletion leave to appeal commencement of time limit

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 425 of the Civil Procedure Act
Article 367.a of the Code of Civil Procedure

Cited Case Law

AI generated
I Ip 2632/2007
Appeal allowed: Claim against dissolved company partners valid if filed after official registry deletion, not after publication.
AI generated
VSL sklep III Cp 290/2007
Appeal dismissed; creditor's claim against deleted company partners barred after one year from deletion publication.
VSL sodba in sklep I Cpg 788/2007
Pritožbi se ugodi in se sodba sodišča prve stopnje spremeni tako, da se zavrne tožbeni zahtevek tožeče stranke za plačilo zneska 10.009.000,00 SIT z zakonskimi zamudnimi obrestmi od 13.
VSL sklep III Ip 418/2014
Supreme Court suspends one-year limitation period for claims against deleted company shareholders during legislative suspension.
VDSS Sklep Psp 178/2019
Appeal dismissed because electronic filing lacked a qualified digital signature required by law.
Sklep II DoR 348/2012
Supreme Court dismisses appeal request for leave to appeal due to lack of statutory conditions under ZPP. The court rejects the claim that bankruptcy proceedings violate constitutional rights. The decision upholds the lower courts' ruling on procedural termination. The court finds no new facts or legal errors warranting review. The request for leave to appeal is inadmissible. The case concerns bankruptcy proceedings and appeal procedures.

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 začetka teka enoletnega roka iz drugega odstavka 425. člena ZGD-1 (prej drugega odstavka 394. člena ZGD).

[JEDRO]

Vrhovno sodišče je dopustilo revizijo glede vprašanja začetka teka enoletnega roka iz drugega odstavka 425. člena ZGD-1.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Tožeča stranka je vložila predlog za dopustitev revizije zoper sklep sodišča druge stopnje, s katerim je bil potrjen sklep sodišča prve stopnje o zavrženju predloga tožeče stranke za nadaljevanje prekinjenega postopka zoper družbenika uvodoma navedene tožene stranke, ki je prenehala po skrajšanem postopku. Predlog tožeče stranke za nadaljevanje prekinjenega postopka je bil namreč zavržen zaradi zamude roka iz drugega odstavka 394. člena ZGD (sedaj drugega odstavka 425. člena ZGD-1).

2. V predlogu za dopustitev revizije se kot pomembno izpostavlja vprašanje, ali začne navedeni enoletni rok teči z dnem objave sklepa o izbrisu družbe v Uradnem listu ali z dnem objave dejanskega izbrisa družbe v Uradnem listu.

3. Predlog je utemeljen.

4. Tožeča stranka utemeljeno opozarja, da presoja spornega vprašanja v obravnavanem primeru odstopa od presoje Višjega sodišča v Ljubljani v zadevi I Ip 2632/2007 (sklep z dne 20. 6. 2007). Zato je Vrhovno sodišče predlogu tožeče stranke ugodilo in dopustilo revizijo glede izpostavljenega pravnega vprašanja (367.a člen ZPP).