Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSRS Sklep III DoR 24/2017 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2017:III.DOR.24.2017 AI generated

Supreme Court allows partial review regarding correct application of Article 105 of the Obligations Act.

Case Number VSRS Sklep III DoR 24/2017
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 partially allowed the review against the second-instance judgment. The defendant argued for a new trial based on the erroneous application of Article 105 of the Obligations Act and alleged a lack of consistent Supreme Court practice. The court found the review admissible only to the extent that the specific question concerns the correct application of the cited statutory provision.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 367.a paragraph 1 of the Act on Civil Procedure; Article 105 of the Obligations Act: A review is permitted if the first-instance court misapplied the cited statutory provision, even if other grounds for review are not met.

Keywords

AI generated
Article 105 Obligations Act Article 367.a Civil Procedure Act review admissibility misapplication of law Supreme Court review

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 367.a paragraph 1 of the Act on Civil Procedure
Article 105 of the Obligations Act
AI generated
VSL sodba I Cp 2353/2013
Appeal dismissed; court upheld liability for icy path and confirmed non-pecuniary damages for severe ankle fracture.
Sklep II DoR 436/2011
Supreme Court dismisses appeal request for revision due to failure to meet statutory conditions under ZPP Art. 367a.3.1.1.
VSRS sklep II DoR 208/2015
Supreme Court rejects review application for failure to precisely state legal issues under ZPP Art. 367b.4.4.6.6.
VSL Sodba I Cp 790/2019
Appeal court adjusts debt amount based on marital property division rules and ultra petitum defense.
Sodba II Ips 1159/2008
Supreme Court dismisses insurance claim for injuries on private driveway, ruling it was not a traffic accident.

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 bila v tej zadevi pravilno uporabljena določba 105. člena Obligacijskega zakonika.

[JEDRO]

Revizija se dopusti glede vprašanja, ali je bila v tej zadevi pravilno uporabljena določba 105. člena OZ.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Sodišče prve stopnje je toženki naložilo plačilo 163.352,70 EUR z zakonskimi zamudnimi obrestmi in povračilo pravdnih stroškov tožnici. V presežku je tožbeni zahtevek zavrnilo.

2. Sodišče druge stopnje je zavrnilo pritožbo toženke in potrdilo izpodbijano sodbo ter odločilo, da toženka krije lastne pritožbene stroške.

3. Zoper sodbo sodišča druge stopnje je toženka vložila predlog za dopustitev revizije, v katerem zatrjuje zmotno uporabo materialnega prava ter bistvene kršitve določb pravdnega postopka. Zatrjuje neobstoj sodne prakse Vrhovnega sodišča. Pomembnost predlaganih enajstih pravnih vprašanj utemeljuje s pomenom za zagotovitev pravne varnosti, razvoj prava preko sodne prakse in enotno uporabo prava.

4. Predlog je deloma utemeljen.

5. Pogoji za dopustitev revizije iz prvega odstavka 367.a člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku so izpolnjeni glede vprašanja, navedenega v izreku tega sklepa. Vrhovno sodišče je zato revizijo v tem delu dopustilo.