Sodna praksa

  • Podatki o zadevi
    • Nacionalna ID: High Court, Judgement I Cp 832/2020
    • Država članica: Slovenija
    • Splošno ime:N/A
    • Vrsta odločbe: Sodna odločba v pritožbenem postopku
    • Datum odločbe: 03/06/2020
    • Sodišče: Visje sodisce v Ljubljani
    • Zadeva:
    • Tožnik:
    • Toženec:
    • Ključne besede: Legal rights, Repealed, Legal guarantee, National law
  • Členi direktive
    Consumer Sales and Guarantees Directive, Article 3 Consumer Sales and Guarantees Directive, Article 6
  • Uvodna opomba

    ECLI:SI:VSLJ:2020:I.CP.832.2020

    Article 18 of the Protection of Buyers of Flats and Single-Dwelling Buildings defines the manner of the seller's delivery of real estate to the buyer, which also includes the delivery of documents or documentation listed in points 2-4 of the first paragraph of said article. It is clear from this that only buyers are entitled to these documents. The manager (multi-apartment buildings) can also act in these relations only as their proxy or representative. The provision of the second paragraph of Article 18 of ZVKSES means only the possibility is given to the seller to fulfill his obligation to individual buyers regarding the documents referred to in points 3 and 4 of the first paragraph of Article 18 of ZVKSES by handing them over to the manager instead. If the seller has not used this option, the buyers have the right to request the delivery of this documentation.

    Relevance: The case law finds, applies and explains what is meant under Article 3 and Article 6 of the Directive 1999/44/EC and how it should be interpreted.

  • Dejstva
    The consumer's request for a list of authorised repairers was not quorate. The applicant did not specify which equipment requires the submission of technical documentation, and merely listed in general the equipment normally found in the dwelling. The consumer lodged warranty documents in the file for the products, for which he seeks delivery of the list of authorised repairers, and not all of the documents. The First Instance Court found that the applicant had lodged warranty documents in the file for all products for which he requested the delivery of a list of authorised repairers. Therefore, in the retrial, the Court of First Instance found that the applicant had received only 'the documents which he had filed'. In that part, the Court of First Instance erred in finding the facts, which resulted in an error of law.
  • Pravna zadeva

    Is the plaintiff's request for the list of authorised services quorate (bearing in mind Article 6 (and 3) of the Directive 1999/44/EC), since the applicant should at least specify which equipment requires the submission of technical documentation?

    Relevance: The case law finds, applies, and explains what is meant under Article 2 (5) of the Directive 1999/44/EC and how it should be interpreted.

  • Odločba

    The applicant's request for a list of authorised repairers is not quorate. The applicant should at least specify which equipment requires the submission of technical documentation, and not merely list in general the equipment normally found in the dwelling. For two reasons, the plaintiff's appellate allegation that she rehanded over the plans of individual parts to the plaintiff at the hearing on 4 September 2019 is unfounded. As is clear from the minutes of the main hearing on 4 September 2019, the defendant filed the document, which was supposed to be a copy of the floor plan, in the file as evidence. In short, it was not an act of fulfillment of a contractual obligation towards the plaintiff, but the submission of evidence in the proceedings (which may have only procedural significance or is intended to prove the allegations made in the proceedings), which the fact that Court of First Instance took it into account, is not justified (and consequently did not determine whether it was really such a document). The plaintiff also did not confirm that it had received the plans of the individual parts.

    URL: http://www.sodnapraksa.si/?q=&advanceSerch=1&database[SOVS]=SOVS&database[IESP]=IESP&_submit=iå¡äi&doc_code=&task_code=&source2=&us_decision=&ecli=ECLI:SI:VSLJ:2020:I.CP.832.2020&meet_dateFrom=&meet_dateTo=&senat_judge=&areas=∈stitutes=&core_text=&decision=&description=&connection2=&publication=&rowsPerPage=20&page=0&id=2015081111441752

    Celotno besedilo: Celotno besedilo

  • Povezane zadeve

    Zadetki niso na voljo

  • Pravna literatura

    Zadetki niso na voljo

  • Zadetek
    As the grounds of the appeal are not substantiated, nor are the reasons given by this court ex officio, the appeal had to be rejected as unfounded and the judgement of the Court of First Instance upheld (Article 353 of the Civil Procedure Act). Since the defendant has failed in its appeal, it shall bear its own costs incurred in lodging the appeal (the first paragraph of Article 165 in conjunction with the first paragraph of Article 154 of the Civil Procedure Act). The plaintiff herself also bears the costs incurred in filing a response to the appeal, as the allegations in it did not contribute in any way to the decision on the defendant's appeal (Article 165 (1) in conjunction with Article 155 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act).