Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSM sklep Cpg 463/93 ECLI:SI:VSMB:1994:CPG.463.93 AI generated

Withdrawal of lawsuit without payment notice triggers court cost ruling under ZPP Art. 158(1).

Case Number VSM sklep Cpg 463/93
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The appellate court dismissed the appeal against the first-instance court's order for the plaintiff to pay legal costs. The plaintiff withdrew the lawsuit without notifying the court of a settlement payment, arguing the defendant was unjustifiably liable. The court ruled that such a withdrawal without payment notice constitutes a procedural act requiring a cost decision under Article 158(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, which the first instance handled correctly.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

1. odstavka 158. člena ZPP; Withdrawal of a lawsuit without a notice of payment between the parties constitutes a procedural act by the party, obliging the court to decide on costs pursuant to Article 158(1) of the Civil Procedure Act.

Keywords

AI generated
withdrawal of lawsuit legal costs Civil Procedure Act procedural act settlement payment costs decision plaintiff liability

Cited Legislation

AI generated
1. odstavka 158. člena ZPP
AI generated
VSL Sklep I Cp 2380/2018
Court allows appeal and shifts litigation costs to defendant when plaintiff withdraws suit immediately after demand fulfillment.
VSL sklep II Cp 1989/2016
Court allows appeal when plaintiff withdraws lawsuit too late after debt recognition in bankruptcy.
VSL sklep I Cpg 407/2001
Appeal dismissed; claimant bears costs because debt recognition in bankruptcy did not justify immediate withdrawal of lawsuit.
VSL sklep I Cp 1245/98
Appeal partially allowed; court reduced costs based on lawyer's fee schedule despite withdrawal.
VSK sklep Cp 147/99
Appeal allowed: Court held 'immediate withdrawal' standard under ZPP Art. 158 must be interpreted by purpose, not grammar.

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]

Umik tožbe tožnika, brez navedbe o plačilu med pravdo, predstavlja procesno dejanje stranke, zaradi katerega mora sodišče odločiti o stroških po 1. odstavku 158.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Sodišče prve stopnje je s sklepom vzelo na znanje umik tožbe in naložilo tožeči stranki plačilo pravdnih stroškov tožene stranke.

Tožeča stranka se je pravočasno pritožila zoper navedeni sklep in sicer samo zoper izrek o pravdnih stroških. V pritožbi je navedla, da toženec ni upravičen do pravdnih stroškov, ker do umika ni prišlo zaradi ugovora, temveč zaradi dogovora o plačilu obveznosti.

Pritožba ni utemeljena.

Tožnik je obvestil sodišče, da umika tožbo zaradi izvensodnega dogovora s toženo stranko. Tako obvestilo tožeče stranke - brez navedbe o plačilu med pravdo - predstavlja procesno dejanje stranke, zaradi katere mora sodišče odločiti o stroških po 1. odstavku 158. člena ZPP. Zato je sodišče prve stopnje ravnalo v izpodbijanem sklepu skladno s procesnim zakonom. Sklep o stroških pa ne vpliva na izvensodni dogovor pravdnih strank o tem, da trpi vsaka svoje stroške iz tega postopka.

Glede na navedeno je pritožbeno sodišče zavrnilo pritožbo.