Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSL sklep I Cp 1871/99 ECLI:SI:VSLJ:1999:I.CP.1871.99 AI generated

Appeal dismissed; parties must share expert costs equally per ZPP provisions despite applicant's poverty.

Case Number VSL sklep I Cp 1871/99
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, upholding the first instance court's order for both parties to share expert witness costs equally. The appellant argued she lacked funds due to receiving social assistance and requested the entire burden be shifted to the opposing party. The court rejected this, noting that the initial judgment already accommodated her financial situation by allowing installment payments, and that current hardship does not justify overturning a legally binding cost allocation.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

249. člen ZPP; When a final judgment allocates expert witness costs equally between parties, an appeal based solely on the appellant's current financial inability to pay does not constitute a valid ground for modification.

Keywords

AI generated
expert witness costs equal sharing of costs financial hardship defense social assistance impact ZPP cost allocation installment payments appeal dismissal

Cited Legislation

AI generated
249. člen ZPP
AI generated
VSRS Sklep III DoR 9/2025
Supreme Court dismisses appeal application due to failure to prove general legal interest under ZPP 367a. The applicant failed to demonstrate why the legal question requires a ruling for the public interest, not just their case outcome. Consequently, the application was rejected as incomplete and inadmissible. The court emphasized that appeal applications must show broader legal significance beyond individual interests. This decision reinforces strict procedural requirements for filing appeal applications in Slovenian civil procedure. The ruling ensures that only cases with genuine public legal interest reach the Supreme Court. Applicants must clearly articulate the necessity of a Supreme Court ruling for legal certainty and uniform application of law.
VDSS Sklep Pdp 15/2021
Appeal court allows appeal against first instance court's award of fixed fees to court expert witness.
VDSS Sklep Pdp 579/2018
Appeal dismissed; plaintiff fully succeeded on merits and costs, defendant bears all litigation expenses.
VSL Sklep IV Cp 1423/2022
Court dismisses appeal regarding expert witness costs in child protection proceedings, ruling they are shared equally.
VSL sklep I Cp 13/2017
Appeal partially allowed; court adjusts costs based on higher disputed value and partial success of parties.

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]

Glede povračila stroškov in nagrade za izvedenca veljajo smiselno določbe drugega in tretjega odstavka 249. člena ZPP.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Z izpodbijanim sklepom je sodišče prve stopnje odločilo, da sta pravdni stranki dolžni nositi stroške izvedenke A. v znesku 86.352,60 SIT, vsaka do 1/2 in jih poravnati v šestih mesečnih obrokih.

Proti sklepu se pritožuje toženka ter v pritožbi navaja, da nima toliko sredstev za življenje, da bi lahko plačala na njo odpadajoči del izvedenskih stroškov, saj sicer prejema socialno pomoč. Toženka sodišču druge stopnje predlaga, da spremeni izpodbijani sklep in vse stroške izvedenskega mnenja naloži v plačilo tožeči stranki.

Pritožba ni utemeljena.

Obveznost, da vsaka stranka nosi polovico stroškov izvedenskega mnenja, je bila pravdnima strankama naložena s pravnomočnim sklepom prvega sodišča z dne 9.10.1998. S tem sklepom je bilo naloženo pravdnima strankama, da sta dolžni povrniti stroške izvedenskega mnenja v šestmesečnih obrokih potem, ko bo izdan dodatni sklep o višini izvedenskih stroškov. Z izpodbijanim sklepom je sodišče prve stopnje le realiziralo prej omenjeni sklep, katerega toženka ob njegovi izdaji ni izpodbijala. Toženkino sedanje finančno stanje ne more biti razlog, ki bi utemeljeval prevalitev njenega bremena izvedenskih stroškov na tožnika. Toženkine materialne razmere je prvo sodišče upoštevalo že s tem, da ji je omogočilo povrniti na njo odpadajoči del izvedenskih stroškov v šestih mesečnih obrokih. Iz povedanih razlogov je bilo treba toženkino pritožbo zavrniti kot neutemeljeno in potrditi sklep sodišča prve stopnje.