Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSL sklep I Cp 1284/99 ECLI:SI:VSLJ:2000:I.CP.1284.99 AI generated

Appeal allowed; new evidence of settlement agreement invalidates partial cost ruling requiring retrial.

Case Number VSL sklep I Cp 1284/99
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Partially Allowed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The appellate court allowed the appeal against a first-instance judgment that awarded costs to the plaintiff. The defendant submitted a new document proving a settlement agreement, which the court deemed relevant to the cost determination. Consequently, the court found the original cost ruling based on incomplete facts and vacated it, ordering the case returned for a new decision.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 353, paragraph 2 of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 355, paragraph 2 of the Civil Procedure Act: The introduction of new evidence in an appeal that could affect the outcome necessitates a retrial if the first-instance court failed to ascertain the true facts.

Keywords

AI generated
new evidence in appeal settlement agreement vacating judgment costs determination incomplete factual finding retrial order civil procedure act

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 353, paragraph 2 of the Civil Procedure Act
Article 355, paragraph 2 of the Civil Procedure Act
Article 380, paragraph 3 of the Civil Procedure Act
Article 370, paragraph 1 of the Civil Procedure Act
Article 365, paragraph 2 of the Civil Procedure Act
Article 154, paragraph 1 of the Civil Procedure Act
Article 158, paragraph 1 of the Civil Procedure Act
AI generated
VSL sklep I Cp 1381/2011
Appeal dismissed; partial withdrawal of suit after partial performance does not exempt plaintiff from costs.
VSL sklep II Cp 2084/2013
Appeal allowed; appeal court quashes first instance ruling on costs due to improper interpretation of withdrawal timing rules.
VSL sklep II Cp 844/2000
Plaintiff must pay defendant's legal costs after withdrawing suit following debt repayment.
VDSS sklep Pdp 499/98
Appeal allowed; travel and absence fees for counsel not considered necessary litigation costs under ZPP Art. 155.1.
VSL sklep I Cpg 909/2012
Appeal allowed; plaintiff must pay defendant's costs because plaintiff withdrew lawsuit after enforcement proceedings were confirmed.

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

Pritožbi se ugodi, izpodbijani sklep se pod tč. 2 razveljavi in se zadeva vrne sodišču prve stopnje v novo odločanje.

[JEDRO]

Toženec je v pritožbi priložil novo listino, ki glede na svojo vsebino utegne biti relevantna za odločitev o stroških. Nov dokaz pomeni nepopolno ugotovitev dejanskega stanja, zaradi česar je bilo treba sklep o izpodbijanem stroškovnem delu razveljaviti.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Okrajno sodišče v Ljubljani je s citiranim sklepom zaradi umika tožbe ustavilo postopek, toženi stranki pa je naložilo povrnitev pravdnih stroškov tožeči stranki v višini 21.500,00 SIT v roku 15 dni pod izvršbo. Zoper sklep se je pravočasno pritožil toženec, ki v pritožbi smiselno navaja pritožbeni razlog iz 2. tč.

1. odst. 353. čl. ZPP, torej da je dejansko stanje nepopolno oz. napačno ugotovljeno. Toženec je pritožbi priložil dogovor pravdnih strank z dne 21.2.1995 (B1), v katerem naj bi se stranki med drugim dogovorili, da tožeča stranka umakne tožbo s predlogom za začasno odredbo in nosi vse stroške v zvezi s tem. Pritožba je utemeljena. Pritožbeno sodišče ugotavlja, da je toženec v pritožbi priložil novo listino, ki glede na svojo vsebino utegne biti relevantna za odločitev o stroških. Nov dokaz pomeni torej nepopolno ugotovitev dejanskega stanja (2. odst. 355.

čl. ZPP), zaradi česar je bilo treba sklep v izpodbijanem stroškovnem delu razveljaviti in zadevo vrniti sodišču prve stopnje v novo odločanje (3. točka 380. čl. ZPP v zvezi s 1. odst. 370. čl. ZPP). Sicer pa je pritožbeno sodišče pri uradnem preizkusu glede uporabe materialnega prava (2. odst. 365. čl. ZPP) ugotovilo zmotno uporabo 1. odst. 154. čl. ZPP. Ob umiku tožbe te določbe ni mogoče uporabiti. V nadaljnem postopku bo potrebno obravnavati obstoj dogovora med strankama, ki ga je predložil toženec, če pa dogovor ne bo izkazan, bo uporabiti 1. odst. 158.

čl. ZPP.