Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSL sodba Cpg 180/93 ECLI:SI:VSLJ:1993:CPG.180.93 AI generated

Appeal dismissed; relying on plaintiff's promise to withdraw without presenting evidence violates procedural rules.

Case Number VSL sodba Cpg 180/93
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Second Instance Court dismissed the appeal against a first-instance judgment ordering the defendant to pay damages and legal costs. The defendant argued that the claim had ceased due to a settlement and relied on the plaintiff's assurance that she would withdraw the lawsuit, yet failed to present evidence until after the main hearing. The court ruled that the defendant's failure to submit new facts and evidence before the main proceedings concluded, despite the plaintiff's promise, violated procedural requirements for introducing new claims in an appeal. Consequently, the appeal was rejected as unfounded, and the original judgment was upheld.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

1. odstavek 496.a člena ZPP; In an appeal proceeding, a party cannot rely on a promise by the opposing party to withdraw the claim as a valid reason for failing to present new facts and evidence before the main hearing concludes.

Keywords

AI generated
civil procedure appeal new facts and evidence withdrawal of claim procedural deadlines burden of proof legal costs ZPP article 496a

Cited Legislation

AI generated
1. odstavek 496.a člena ZPP
2. točka 1. odstavka 353. člena ZPP
AI generated
VSL Sodba I Cpg 762/2019
Appeal dismissed because defendant failed to specify missing items, rendering claims insufficient and evidence unnecessary.
VSL Sklep I Cp 1032/2023
Appeal court dismisses appeal and remands case due to violation of defendant's right to appeal an interim ruling.
VSL sodba I Cpg 598/99
Appeal dismissed; driver's near-edge driving deemed gross negligence without special reason.
VSL sklep I Cpg 944/2011
Consumer court dismisses appeal upholding 'satisfaction guarantee' allowing return of wall-drying equipment for any reason.
VSL sodba I Cpg 710/2000
Appeal allowed; first instance court erred by failing to apply ZGD s. 56(2) regarding full accounting report delivery.

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

Pritožba se zavrne kot neutemeljena in se sodba sodišča prve stopnje potrdi.

[JEDRO]

Okoliščina, da se je toženec zanesel na zagotovilo tožnika o umiku tožbe in zato ni do konca glavne obravnave navedel dejstev in dokazov o prenehanju terjatve, ne ustreza zahtevam iz 1. odstavka 496.a člena ZPP. Zato s pritožbo ne more več uveljavljati novih dejstev in dokazov.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Sodišče prve stopnje je z izpodbijano sodbo odločilo, da mora tožena stranka plačati znesek 5.811,20 SIT z zakonitimi zamudnimi obrestmi.

Toženi stranki je naložilo plačilo pravdnih stroškov v znesku 3.633,00 SIT.

Zoper sodbo se je pravočasno pritožila tožena stranka, ki uveljavlja pritožbeni razlog po 2.točki 1. odstavka 353. člena ZPP. Navedla je, da je terjatev prenehala že 15.9.1992 s kompenzacijo in dobropisom.

Prilaga tudi ustrezno dokumentacijo. Obravnave se ni udeležila, ker ji je tožeča stranka zagotovila, da bo tožbo umaknila.

Pritožba je bila vročena tožeči stranki, ki nanjo ni odgovorila.

Pritožba ni utemeljena.

Tožena stranka s pritožbo uveljavlja novo dejstvo in predlaga nove dokaze. Po določilu 1. odstavka 496.a člena ZPP pa v pritožbenem postopku nova dejstva in dokazi niso dovoljeni razen, če pritožnik izkaže za verjetno, da jih brez svoje krivde ni mogel uveljavljati.

To dejstvo pa ne more biti okoliščina, da je tožeča stranka zagotovila umik tožbe. pozneje pa tega ni storila. Tožena stranka bi se morala udeleževati postopka vse, dokler ne bi prejela obvestila sodišča o umiku tožbe.