Legislator Case Law & Legislation
VSM sklep Cpg 279/92 ECLI:SI:VSMB:1993:CPG.279.92 AI generated

Appeal dismissed; court only considers costs declared by end of main hearing per ZPP s. 164.

Case Number VSM sklep Cpg 279/92
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed

Legislator summary

AI generated

The appeal was rejected as unfounded, and the first-instance court's decision to dismiss the lawsuit was upheld. The plaintiff argued that incorrect data in the court registry invalidated the proceedings, but the court found this claim baseless since the defendant was already deleted from the registry and the plaintiff failed to provide registry correspondence. Furthermore, the appeal was dismissed because the parties did not declare the costs within the time limit set by Article 164 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

člen 83 ZPP; člen 164 ZPP: The court considers only costs declared by the end of the main hearing, and procedural errors caused by the party's own failure to correct registry data do not justify an appeal.

Keywords

AI generated
Civil Procedure Act costs declaration deadline registry error unfounded appeal procedural consequence

Cited Legislation

AI generated
AI generated

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 potrdi sklep sodišča prve stopnje.

[JEDRO]

Po določilu člena 164 ZPP sodišče upošteva le stroške, ki jih stranka priglasi do konca glavne obravnave.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Tožeča stranka se je pravočasno pritožila zoper sklep sodišča prve stopnje, s katerim je le-to po členu 83 ZPP zavrglo tožbo. V pritožbi se je tožnica sklicevala na to, da je dobila napačne podatke v sodnem registru.

Pritožba ni utemeljena.

Prvostopno sodišče je ravnalo v skladu s določilom 83. člena ZPP, ko je tožnica vrnila tožbo brez odpravljenega napačnega naziva tožene strake. Procesne posledice cit. določila je tožnica povzročila sama.

Očitno je sklicevanje na sodni register zgolj izgovor, saj pritožbi ni bilo priloženo sporočilo sodnega registra. Ta pritožbena navedba tudi ni verjetna, saj je bila v tožbi označena pravna oseba izbrisana iz sodnega registra 29.3.1990, sodišče pa je zahtevalo popravek v mesecu maju 1991. Izrek o pritožbenih stroških je odpadel, ker jih stranki nista priglasili.