Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Sklep III Ips 23/2008 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2008:III.IPS.23.2008 AI generated

Supreme Court dismisses revision in tenancy dispute where annual rent value falls below statutory threshold.

Case Number Sklep III Ips 23/2008
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 revision application because the calculated value of the disputed subject matter did not exceed the statutory limit for economic disputes. The tenant sued for eviction based on a five-year lease with a monthly rent of 200,000 SIT, which the court converted to approximately 10,015 EUR using the 2007 euro conversion rate. Since the annual rent value of 10,015 EUR was below the 20,864.63 EUR threshold for admissibility under Article 42 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the revision was rejected and costs were assigned to the unsuccessful party.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 42 of the Code of Civil Procedure; Article 490 of the Code of Civil Procedure: In tenancy disputes, the value of the disputed subject matter is determined by the annual rent, unless the lease was concluded for a shorter period, and revision is inadmissible if this value does not exceed the statutory threshold.

Keywords

AI generated
tenancy dispute revision admissibility value threshold euro conversion annual rent calculation Code of Civil Procedure economic dispute limit

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 42 of the Code of Civil Procedure
Article 490 of the Code of Civil Procedure
Article 13 of the Act on the Introduction of the Euro
Article 377 of the Code of Civil Procedure
Article 154 of the Code of Civil Procedure
Article 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure
Article 86 of the Code of Civil Procedure
AI generated
Sodba in sklep III Ips 138/2007
Supreme Court dismisses appeal on unjust enrichment and rejects interest claim as inadmissible for review threshold.
Sodba III Ips 126/2006
Court dismisses appeal for lack of claim specificity, ruling validity depends on pleading facts.
Sklep III Ips 11/2008
Supreme Court dismisses review where individual maintenance cost claims under 20,864.63 EUR each. Review barred as no single claim exceeds threshold despite multiple claims. Court rejects review and assigns costs to appellant. Review barred as no single claim exceeds threshold despite multiple claims. Court rejects review and assigns costs to appellant.
VSRS sklep II DoR 435/2014
Supreme Court dismisses review application as admissibility conditions under ZPP Art. 367a are not met.
Sklep III Ips 18/2008
Supreme Court dismisses appeal because case value under €20,864.63 exceeds revision threshold.

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 zavrže.

Tožena stranka sama krije svoje stroške revizijskega postopka.

[JEDRO]

V sporih o obstoju najemnega razmerja se kot vrednost spornega predmeta vzame enoletna najemnina, razen če gre za najemno razmerje, sklenjeno za krajši čas.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

(1) Po prvem odstavku 13. člena Zakona o uvedbi eura (Uradni list RS št. 114/2006) se šteje, da se tolarski zneski, navedeni v predpisih in sodnih aktih, z dnem uvedbe eura (1. 1. 2007) glasijo na euro, preračunano po tečaju zamenjave. Tečaj zamenjave je določen v Uredbi Sveta (ES), št. 1086/2006 z dne 11. 7. 2006 (UL L št. 195 z dne 15. 7. 2006), in znaša 239,640 slovenskih tolarjev za 1 euro.

(2) Po 490. členu Zakona o pravdnem postopku (ZPP; Uradni list RS, št. 73/2007 - uradno prečiščeno besedilo) revizija v gospodarskih sporih ni dovoljena, če vrednost spornega predmeta glede izpodbijanega dela pravnomočne sodbe ne presega 20.864,63 EUR (prej 5,000.000,00 SIT). V sporih o obstoju najemnega razmerja se kot vrednost spornega predmeta vzame enoletna najemnina, razen če gre za najemno razmerje, sklenjeno za krajši čas (42. člen ZPP).

(3) Obravnavani spor je tekel zaradi odpovedi najemne pogodbe in izpraznitve poslovnega prostora. Iz tožbe izhaja, da je bila najemna pogodba med pravdnima strankama sklenjena za določen čas petih let in da je bila dogovorjena mesečna najemnina v višini 200.000,00 SIT. To pomeni, da po (zgoraj navedenem) pravilu iz 42. člena ZPP vrednost spornega predmeta znaša 10.015,02 EUR (prej 2,400.000,00 SIT). Ker ne presega mejne vrednosti za dovoljenost revizije, revizija ni dovoljena in jo je bilo treba na podlagi 377. člena ZPP zavreči.

(4) Tožena stranka, ki z revizijo ni uspela, po določbi prvega odstavka 154. člena ZPP sama krije svoje stroške revizijskega postopka.

(5) Odgovora na revizijo, ki ga je v imenu tožeče stranke podal njen zakoniti zastopnik, ne da bi ob tem izkazal, da ima opravljen pravniški državni izpit, Vrhovno sodišče ni upoštevalo (91. člen ZPP v zvezi s tretjim in četrtim odstavkom 86. člena ZPP).