Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSM sklep Cpg 394/93 ECLI:SI:VSMB:1994:CPG.394.93 AI generated

Appeal dismissed as inadmissible for small-value dispute where only enforcement costs remain the sole claim.

Case Number VSM sklep Cpg 394/93
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The appellant filed an appeal solely against the rejection of a claim for enforcement costs after withdrawing the main claim and interest. The first-instance court had already determined the appellant had paid these costs, leaving only the enforcement costs as the sole disputed matter. The court dismissed the appeal because Article 467 of the Civil Procedure Act prohibits appeals regarding factual findings in disputes of small value, which now applied to the remaining claim.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 467 of the Civil Procedure Act; When enforcement costs become the sole and main claim in a small-value dispute, appeals regarding factual findings are inadmissible under Article 467 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Keywords

AI generated
small value dispute enforcement costs inadmissible appeal factual findings Civil Procedure Act

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 467 of the Civil Procedure Act
AI generated
VSL sodba I Cpg 1525/2014
Court dismisses appeal against storage contract breach where defendant released goods without client's order.
VSK sodba I Cpg 88/2005
Appeal dismissed; contractor must pay subcontractor when main contractor fails to pay under conditional instruction.
VSL Sodba II Cp 391/2018
Appeal granted; first-instance judgment reversed regarding enforcement order due to failure to prove chimney closure.
VSC sodba Cp 982/2005
Appeal dismissed; lawyer's delay in filing preparatory brief after receiving objection invalidates procedural claim.
VSL sodba II Cp 3068/2016
Appeal partially allowed; court reversed first instance judgment due to procedural errors and partial success.

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 kot nedovoljena zavrže.

[JEDRO]

Če so izvršilni stroški postali edini in glavni zahtevek, velja tudi za njih določilo 467. čl. ZPP, da v sporu majhne vrednosti ni dovoljena pritožba o dejanskem stanju.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Tožeča stranka je zaradi plačila med pravdo umaknila zahtevek za glavnico in zamudne obresti. Ostal je sporen le zahtevek za izvršilne stroške - iz sklepa o izvršbi po verodostojni listini. Prvostopno sodišče je z izpodbijanim sklepom zavrnilo zahtevek o navedenih stroških, ker je ugotovilo, da je toženka tudi te med pravdo plačala.

Tožeča stranka se je pritožila le zoper izrek o zavrnitvi plačila cit. izvršilnih stroškov.

Pritožba ni dovoljena.

Potem, ko so cit. stroški postali edini in glavni zahtevek, velja tudi za njih določilo o sporu majhne vrednosti. Po 467. členu ZPP ni dovoljena pritožba o dejanskem stanju - prav to pa uveljavlja tožeča stranka, ko navaja da spornega zneska stroškov ni prejela.

Zgolj podredno je dodati, da je toženka sporne stroške v znesku 3.078,00 sit pomotoma plačala na račun sodnih taks, prvostopno sodišče pa je s sklepom z dne 29.3.1993 naložilo SDK, da ta znesek preodkaže tožeči stranki. V kolikor le-ta zneska še ni prejela, lahko na SDK uveljavlja plačilo, saj ji je sodišče poslalo izvod citiranega sklepa.