Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSRS Sklep III DoR 9/2020 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2020:III.DOR.9.2020 AI generated

Supreme Court allows review to determine if tax authority practice change violated due diligence.

Case Number VSRS Sklep III DoR 9/2020
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 the request for review solely regarding whether a change in the tax authority's practice constituted a breach of due diligence. The lower courts had reversed the first-instance judgment, ordering the defendant to pay over one million euros to the plaintiff. The court permitted the review because the specific question of potential due diligence violations met the statutory threshold for appellate intervention.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 367a paragraph 1 of the Act on Civil Procedure; A change in the practice of a tax authority may constitute an act contrary to due diligence if it results in a significant disadvantage for the taxpayer, thereby justifying a review of the lower court's decision.

Keywords

AI generated
tax authority practice change due diligence standard civil procedure review Supreme Court jurisdiction tax liability dispute

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 367a paragraph 1 of the Act on Civil Procedure
Article 324 paragraph 7 of the Act on Civil Procedure
AI generated
VSL Sklep I Cpg 145/2021
Appeal allowed; first-instance court erred by misinterpreting a statement as a waiver of non-performance defense.
VSL sodba I Cpg 673/2015
Unjust enrichment claim dismissed where payment obligations stem from a tripartite contractual framework rather than lack of legal basis.
VSL sodba I Cpg 162/2011
Appeal dismissed; bank's right to terminate loan contract for default remains valid despite remittance/creditor overlap.
VSL sklep II Cp 1163/2002
Appeal allowed; appeal court quashes first instance judgment and remands case for retrial due to incomplete fact-finding.
VSL sodba I Cpg 876/2013
Court partially allowed appeal against bank guarantee claim, ruling unenforced payment due to missed defect cure period.

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 sprememba prakse davčnega organa pomenila ravnanje v nasprotju z dolžno skrbnostjo?

[JEDRO]

Revizija se dopusti glede vprašanja, ali je sprememba prakse davčnega organa pomenila ravnanje v nasprotju z dolžno skrbnostjo.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Sodišče prve stopnje je v ponovljenem postopku odločilo, da je tožena stranka dolžna tožeči stranki v roku 15 dni plačati 1.082.561,29 EUR z zakonskimi zamudnimi obrestmi od 6. 1. 2014 (I. točka izreka).

2. Sodišče druge stopnje je pritožbi ugodilo in sodbo sodišča prve stopnje spremenilo tako, da je tožbeni zahtevek zavrnilo (II. točka izreka).

3. Zoper sodbo sodišča druge stopnje tožeča stranka vlaga 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 glede vprašanja, opredeljenega v izreku sklepa. Revizijo je zato v tem obsegu dopustilo. Glede preostalih zastavljenih vprašanj predlogu ni ugodilo, saj vprašanja niso pomembna pravna vprašanja.

5. Vrhovno sodišče je sklep sprejelo soglasno (sedmi odstavek 324. člena ZPP).