Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Sklep VIII Ips 53/2007 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2007:VIII.IPS.53.2007 AI generated

Court dismisses appeal withdrawal as valid since no decision was made on the appeal yet.

Case Number Sklep VIII Ips 53/2007
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court of Slovenia dismissed the appellant's request to withdraw their appeal, ruling that the withdrawal was invalid because the court had not yet rendered a decision on the appeal. The appellant had previously lost a labor dispute regarding an unjustified termination and later filed an appeal, only to withdraw it after allegedly reaching a settlement with the employee. The court held that under the Code of Procedural Law, a party may withdraw an appeal only before the court makes a ruling, a rule that applies mutatis mutandis to appeals.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

2. odstavek 334. člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku; 383. člen ZPP: A party may withdraw an appeal only before the court renders a decision, a rule that applies mutatis mutandis to appeals.

Keywords

AI generated
withdrawal of appeal supreme court procedure labor dispute termination appeal withdrawal timing procedural law ZPP

Cited Legislation

AI generated
2. odstavek 334. člen Zakona o pravdnem postopku (ZPP)
383. člen ZPP
1. odstavek 155. člen ZPP
AI generated
VSRS Sklep VIII DoR 221/2023-8
Supreme Court allows review on mass dismissal procedure legality and timely notice of contract termination.
Sklep VIII Ips 15/2009
Court dismisses appeal withdrawal case confirming parties may withdraw appeals before final judgment.
VDSS sklep Pdp 372/2014
Appeal allowed; first-instance court dismissed manager's claim due to business reasons and procedural errors.
VDS sklep Pdp 1569/2004
Appeal allowed: Employer not required to use redundancy criteria for single employee dismissal under new Labor Code.
VDS sodba Pdp 1261/2004
Appeal dismissed; employer failed to prove business grounds for dismissal under Article 82 of the Employment Relations Act.

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

Ugotovi se umik revizije.

Tožnica sama krije stroške odgovora na revizijo.

[JEDRO]

Stranka lahko umakne že vloženo pritožbo, dokler sodišče o njej ne odloči. To velja smiselno tudi za revizijo.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Sodišče je ugodilo tožbenemu zahtevku in ugotovilo nezakonitost odpovedi pogodbe o zaposlitvi iz poslovnega razloga, ki jo je dne 14.6.2005 podala tožena stranka tožnici. Hkrati je ugodilo tudi tožničinemu reintegracijskemu zahtevku.

Zoper pravnomočno sodbo sodišča druge stopnje je vložila tožena stranka dne 24.11.2006 revizijo zaradi zmotne uporabe materialnega prava.

Tožnica je na revizijo odgovorila in priglasila stroške.

Dne 23.3.2007 je tožena stranka posredovala sodišču umik revizije, češ da sta s tožnico sklenili poravnavo o izvršitvi pravnomočne sodbe.

V skladu z 2. odstavkom 334. člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku (ZPP - prečiščeno besedilo, Ur. l. RS, št. 36/04) lahko stranka umakne že vloženo pritožbo dokler sodišče o njej ne odloči. Na podlagi določb 383. člena ZPP velja to smiselno tudi za revizijo. Ker o toženkini reviziji sodišče še ni odločalo, je bilo potrebno upoštevati njeno izjavo o umiku revizije.

Izrek o stroških temelji na 1. odstavku 155. člena ZPP, ker odgovor ne bi bistveno prispeval k odločitvi o reviziji.