Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Sklep II Ips 224/2003 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2004:II.IPS.224.2003 AI generated

Appeal dismissed because the disputed amount of 993,000 SIT falls below the 1,000,000 SIT threshold for review. The court rejected the appeal as inadmissible under the Code of Civil Procedure. The appellate court confirmed the first instance judgment and dismissed the appeal. The court ruled that the appeal was inadmissible because the disputed amount of 993,000 SIT fell below the 1,000,000 SIT threshold required for review under the Code of Civil Procedure. The appellate court confirmed the first instance judgment and dismissed the appeal. The court ruled that the appeal was inadmissible because the disputed amount of 993,000 SIT fell below the 1,000,000 SIT threshold required for review under the Code of Civil Procedure. The appellate court confirmed the first instance judgment and dismissed the appeal.

Case Number Sklep II Ips 224/2003
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 appeal against both the first-instance judgment and the procedural order. The plaintiff sought damages totaling 993,000 SIT, which was below the statutory threshold for review. The court held that since the disputed value did not exceed 1,000,000 SIT, the appeal was legally inadmissible under the Code of Civil Procedure.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

2nd paragraph of Article 367; Article 384 of the Code of Civil Procedure: An appeal is inadmissible in property disputes where the value of the disputed subject matter does not exceed one million tolar.

Keywords

AI generated
Code of Civil Procedure appeal inadmissibility value threshold property dispute review procedure damages claim supreme court

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 367 of the Code of Civil Procedure
Article 384 of the Code of Civil Procedure
AI generated
VSL sodba III Cp 2457/2016
Appeal dismissed; insurer properly paid claimant's wife based on apparent authority and lack of duty to verify identity.
VSL sodba II Cp 3323/2006
Pet owner's claim dismissed; employee not liable for dog death without intent to cause harm.
VSL Sodba I Cp 809/2023
Appeal dismissed; plaintiff failed to prove damages in personal bankruptcy proceedings due to lack of specific evidence.
Sklep II Ips 192/2011
Court dismisses appeal as review is neither permitted by law nor granted by lower court.
VSL Sklep II Cp 885/2018
Appeal allowed; owner-driver loses insurance rights only for non-property damage, not total loss. Court reverses first instance judgment.

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

Revizija se zavrže.

[JEDRO]

Nedovoljena revizija zoper sodbo (glede na vrednost spornega predmeta) in zoper sklep se zavrže (377. člen in 384. člen ZPP).

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Sodišče prve stopnje je zavrnilo tožbeni zahtevek za plačilo odškodnine v višini 993.000 tolarjev z zakonskimi zamudnimi obrestmi, kolikor je tožnik zahteval od drugotoženca in četrtotoženca. Pravdni postopek proti prvotoženki in tretjetoženki pa je zaradi umika tožbe ustavilo. Sodišče druge stopnje je zavrnilo tožnikovo pritožbo zoper sodbo in zoper sklep ter potrdilo odločitev sodišča prve stopnje.

Zoper tako pravnomočno sodno odločbo je tožeča stranka vložila pravočasno revizijo, v kateri uveljavlja vse revizijske razloge.

Revizija je bila vročena nasprotni stranki in Vrhovnemu državnemu tožilstvu RS (375. člen Zakona o pravdnem postopku, Ur. l. RS, št. 36/2004 - prečiščeno besedilo, ZPP).

Revizija ni dovoljena.

V drugem odstavku 367. člena ZPP je določeno, da je revizija dovoljena v premoženjskih sporih, v katerih vrednost izpodbijanega dela pravnomočne odločbe presega 1,000.000 tolarjev. V drugem odstavku 384. člena ZPP pa je določeno, da revizije zoper sklep ni v sporih, v katerih ne bi bila dovoljena revizija zoper sodbo. Vrednost denarnega zahtevka, o katerem je sodišče odločalo, je bila 993.000 tolarjev, kar je nižja vrednost, kot jo zakon predvideva, da je izredno pravno sredstvo - revizija - dovoljena, saj je vrednost spornega predmeta v tej zadevi enaka vrednosti denarnega zahtevka (993.000 SIT).

Ker tega ni storilo že sodišče prve stopnje (374. člen ZPP), je nedovoljeno revizijo zoper sodbo in zoper sklep zavrglo revizijsko sodišče (377. člen in 384. člen ZPP).