Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSRS Sklep III DoR 61/2020 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2020:III.DOR.61.2020 AI generated

Supreme Court allows review regarding interpretation of Contract Agreement 2017 Article 9(4) binding scope and method.

Case Number VSRS Sklep III DoR 61/2020
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 the Republic of Slovenia granted the applicant's request for leave to appeal only regarding the interpretation of Article 9(4) of the 2017 Contract Agreement. The lower courts had dismissed the plaintiff's claim for payment, and the Supreme Court found the remaining legal questions insufficiently significant for review. Consequently, the review is permitted solely on the specific issue of how the agreement's provisions should be interpreted and who they bind.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 367.a(1) of the Act on Civil Procedure; The Supreme Court may grant leave for review only when the question concerns the correct interpretation of a contractual provision, its binding scope, and the method of application, provided it is a significant legal issue.

Keywords

AI generated
leave for review contract interpretation binding scope method of application significant legal issue Article 367.a ZPP contractual agreement

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 367.a(1) of the Act on Civil Procedure
Article 324(7) of the Act on Civil Procedure
AI generated
VSM sodba I Cpg 361/2016
Appeal court reverses first instance, ordering defendant to pay plaintiff damages and procedural costs based on property ownership.
VSL sodba I Cpg 1232/2012
Appeal dismissed; explicit consent required for contract terms; oral agreement invalid without precise essential elements.
VSL sodba I Cp 3133/2012
Appeal dismissed; seizure of land dispute ruled as business decision without legal interference. Seizure does not block legal disposition.
VSK sodba Cp 845/2010
Appeal dismissed; plaintiff failed to prove damages and specific loss calculations were insufficient.
VSL sklep II Cp 1331/2012
Court allows appeal against dismissal of debt claim due to interruption of limitation period by land registration consent.

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: Kakšna je pravilna razlaga določila četrtega odstavka 9. člena Splošnega dogovora za pogodbeno leto 2017, koga ta določba zavezuje in na kakšen način?

[JEDRO]

Revizija se dopusti glede vprašanja kakšna je pravilna razlaga določila četrtega odstavka 9. člena Splošnega dogovora za pogodbeno leto 2017, koga ta določba zavezuje in na kakšen način.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Sodišče prve stopnje je v delu, relevantnem za presojo predloga za dopustitev revizije, zavrnilo tožbeni zahtevek za plačilo 9.162,03 EUR z zakonskimi zamudnimi obrestmi od 4. 3. 2018 (III. točka izreka sodbe).

2. Sodišče druge stopnje je pritožbo tožnice zavrnilo in potrdilo sodbo sodišča prve stopnje.

3. Zoper sodbo sodišča druge stopnje tožnica 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 (v nadaljevanju ZPP) glede vprašanja, opredeljenega v izreku sklepa. Revizijo je zato v tem obsegu dopustilo. Glede preostalih zastavljenih vprašanj predlogu ni ugodilo, saj sama po sebi niso pomembna pravna vprašanja.

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