Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Sklep II Dor 17/2009 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2009:II.DOR.17.2009 AI generated

Supreme Court dismisses review application because conditions under ZPP Article 367a paragraph 1 are not met.

Case Number Sklep II Dor 17/2009
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court of Slovenia rejected the applicant's request for permission to file a review against the second-instance court's decision. The applicant sought to challenge the dismissal of their claim for statutory interest on damages, which the lower courts had partially upheld or rejected. The court determined that the statutory requirements for granting a review under the Code of Civil Procedure were not satisfied, leading to the dismissal of the application.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 367a paragraph 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure; Article 367c paragraph 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure: A review application is inadmissible if the conditions for its permission under Article 367a paragraph 1 are not met.

Keywords

AI generated
Code of Civil Procedure review application permission conditions statutory interest damages claim dismissal of review second instance court

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 367a paragraph 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure
Article 367c paragraph 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure
AI generated
VDSS sodba in sklep Pdp 602/2015
Court allows public employee's claim for return of overpaid salary but remands case to address counterclaim.
VDSS sodba Pdp 218/2011
Workplace injury liability upheld; employee's unauthorized removal of heavy gear caused accident.
VDSS sodba Pdp 319/2015
Appeal dismissed; employer must reimburse employee for field trip travel costs per Labor Law.
VSM Sodba I Cp 494/2018
Appeal dismissed; court upheld discrimination claim where dentist refused HIV patient treatment causing mental distress.
VSL sodba II Cp 1004/2014
Court partially allows appeal, reducing damages by 40% for plaintiff's contributory negligence in a slip-and-fall case.

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

Pogoji za dopustitev revizije iz prvega odstavka 367.a člena ZPP niso podani.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Predlog se zavrne.

OBRAZLOŽITEV:

1. Sodišče prve stopnje je odločilo, da mora tožena stranka tožnici plačati poleg pravnomočno prisojenega ji zneska 19.195,46 EUR še 16.220,54 EUR z zakonskimi zamudnimi obrestmi od 1. 1. 2002 dalje, v presežku pa je njen tožbeni zahtevek zavrnilo.

2. Sodišče druge stopnje je sodbo glede glavne terjatve potrdilo, glede stranske terjatve pa jo je spremenilo tako, da je zahtevek za plačilo zakonskih zamudnih obresti od zneska 16.220,54 EUR za obdobje od 10. 7. 2003 dalje zavrnilo.

3. Tožena stranka je vložila predlog za dopustitev revizije zoper sodbo sodišča druge stopnje v delu, s katerim je bila zavrnjena njena pritožba zoper sodbo sodišča prve stopnje o zavezi plačati tožnici odškodnino z zakonskimi zamudnimi obrestmi.

4. Ker pogoji za dopustitev revizije iz prvega odstavka 367.a člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku (v nadaljevanju ZPP) niso podani, je Vrhovno sodišče predlog zavrnilo (drugi odstavek 367.c člena ZPP).