Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Sklep III Ips 8/2002 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2002:III.IPS.8.2002 AI generated

Appeal dismissed because the disputed property value of 2 million SIT falls below the 5 million SIT threshold for review.

Case Number Sklep III Ips 8/2002
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 rejected the appeal filed against the second-instance court's decision in a commercial dispute. The appellant argued for absolute and relative procedural violations, but the court found the appeal inadmissible due to the value of the disputed subject matter. Since the total value was only 2 million SIT, it did not meet the statutory threshold of 5 million SIT required to permit a review under Article 490 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 490 of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 377 of the Civil Procedure Act: An appeal in a commercial dispute is inadmissible if the value of the disputed subject matter does not exceed five million SIT.

Keywords

AI generated
commercial dispute appeal admissibility value threshold civil procedure act review limitation

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 490 of the Civil Procedure Act
Article 377 of the Civil Procedure Act
AI generated
VSL sklep II Cp 1631/2011
Appeal dismissed; creditor must prove subjective danger of asset dissipation, not just objective risk, under ZIZ Art. 270.
VSL sklep I Cpg 488/2012
Appeal dismissed; temporary order denied due to insufficient evidence of asset dissipation and lack of urgency.
VSL Sklep I Cp 748/2020
Appeal dismissed; no link between land seizure and alleged violence justifies interim order under ZIZ. Court rejects new evidence due to procedural timing. Epidemic did not excuse failure to gather evidence earlier.
Sodba II Ips 769/2008
Supreme Court dismisses appeal on property transfer barred by land registry prohibition and invalid contract. The court ruled that a contract for sale of property with a registered prohibition of transfer is void, and the buyer cannot claim unjust enrichment or damages. The court held that the buyer's possession is not protected because the transfer was illegal under the ZUN, and the seller's inability to use the property does not constitute a deprivation of rights. The court rejected the argument that the buyer could have obtained legalization through the seller's efforts, as the contract itself was void due to the illegality of its subject matter. The court emphasized that the buyer's possession is not protected because the transfer was illegal under the ZUN, and the seller's inability to use the property does not constitute a deprivation of rights. The court rejected the argument that the buyer could have obtained legalization through the seller's efforts, as the contract itself was void due to the illegality of its subject matter.
VSM sodba I Cp 2078/2009
Court partially allows appeal on costs, ruling possession includes municipal road management actions.

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.

[JEDRO]

Zavrženje revizije zaradi prenizke vrednosti spornega predmeta.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Sodišče prve stopnje je s sodbo ugotovilo, da je predpogodba za nakup nepremičnin in zemljišča, sklenjena med strankama gospodarskega spora, razvezana (prva točka izreka) in je toženi stranki naložilo izstavitev zemljiškoknjižne listine na podlagi katere se bo izbrisala prepoved odsvojitve in obremenitve nepremičnin iz zemljiške knjige (druga točka izreka). Glede preostanka je tožbeni zahtevek zavrnilo (tretja točka izreka) in naložilo, da mora povrniti tožeči stranki pravdne stroške (četrta točka izreka).

Drugostopenjsko sodišče je pritožbo tožene stranke delno s sodbo zavrnilo in potrdilo sodbo prvostopenjskega sodišča v prvi točki izreka, delno pa ji je s sklepom ugodilo in prvostopenjsko sodbo v drugi in četrti točki izreka razveljavilo ter zadevo v tem obsegu vrnilo prvostopenjskemu sodišču v novo sojenje. Pritožbo zoper tretjo točko izreka je pritožbeno sodišče s sklepom zavrglo.

Zoper sodbo sodišča druge stopnje je tožena stranka vložila revizijo. V reviziji uveljavlja absolutne in relativne bistvene kršitve določb pravdnega postopka ter zmotno uporabo materialnega prava.

Revizijskemu sodišču predlaga, naj razveljavi sodbi drugostopenjskega in prvostopenjskega sodišča in tožbo tudi v tem delu zavrže. Podredno je revident predlagal zavrnitev tožbenega zahtevka in vrnitev zadeve v novo odločanje.

Revizija je bila vročena tožeči stranki in Državnemu tožilstvu Republike Slovenije. Državno tožilstvo se o reviziji ni izjavilo; tožeča stranka pa na revizijo ni odgovorila.

Revizija ni dovoljena.

Po določbi 490. člena ZPP je revizija v gospodarskem sporu dovoljena le, če vrednost spornega predmeta presega 5.000.000,00 SIT. Vrednost spornega predmeta pa po podatkih spisa znaša le 2.000.000,00 SIT, in sicer za vse zahtevke skupaj. Iz tega sledi, da revizija zoper kakršnokoli pravnomočno odločbo v tej zadevi ni dovoljena. Revizijo je zato revizijsko sodišče zavrglo (377. člen ZPP).