Skip to main content

Disgorgement of Profits in Slovenian Law

  • Chapter
  • 1065 Accesses

Part of the book series: Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law ((GSCL,volume 8))

Abstract

In Slovenian law, complete disgorgement of profits is possible only in criminal and administrative law (via public enforcement, to the benefit of the state budget), but generally not in private law (via private enforcement, to the benefit of the plaintiff). The scarce case law indicates that seizure of benefits gained by criminal act or minor offense rarely occurs in practice. An easier to apply functional equivalent of the disgorgement of profits is monetary penalty (when prescribed). In tort law, wrongfully gained profit may be disgorged by way of a damages claim only to the extent that it represents legally relevant damage (lost profit) of the wronged person. It would seem that tort law is more concerned with preventing the wronged party from getting more in damages than its damage (loss) amounts to, than it is with preventing the wrongdoer from keeping profit gained by wrongful infliction of damage (and exceeding the “loss” of the wronged party). An exception applies to infringements of copyright where damages may be multiplied to up to three times the actual damage. In contract law, the damages are generally limited by foreseeability, but this limitation does not apply in cases of intentional or reckless breaches, which can be seen as a way of preventing (profitable) breaches and achieving some extent of disgorgement of profits.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See, e.g., American Law Institute (2011), § 3 of Restatement (Third) of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment.

  2. 2.

    The expression “tort law” is used in the sense of non-contractual liability for damage and covers delicts (fault liability) as well as quasi-delicts (strict liability).

  3. 3.

    See Art. 205 of the Obligations Code.

  4. 4.

    Art. 42 of the Companies Act (ZGD-1, Official Gazette 42/2006, most recent amendment 82/2013). However, this claim must be filed within 3 months after the company discovered the violation and the liable person, or within 5 years from the occurrence of damage, at the latest.

  5. 5.

    See Art. 131(1) of the Obligations Code. The fault (negligence) is presumed until proven otherwise. The general clause of Art. 131 of the Obligations Code does not mention wrongfulness. However, it is undisputable that “wrongful conduct” is one of the elements of fault liability; see, e.g., Supreme Court Case No. VIII Ips 314/2004, dated 24 May 2005. In addition to the fault principle, the loss has to be made good by the person carrying out the “dangerous activity” or the holder of the “dangerous thing”, regardless of their fault (strict liability) if the loss is attributable to the increased risk of inflicting damage arising out of the “dangerous” activity or thing, see Art. 131(2) of the Obligations Code. Strict liability also applies to some other cases defined by the law, see Art. 131(3) of the Obligations Code.

  6. 6.

    See Art. 169 of the Obligations Code.

  7. 7.

    However, if the wronged party receives sympathetic help or gifts from volunteers, this is not deducted from the damages, as the purpose is to help (and, in this sense, to enrich) the wronged person. An exception to the principle also applies in cases where social support is given to the wronged party, see Supreme Court Case No. II Ips 50/1994, dated 15 September 1994.

  8. 8.

    See Arts. 132, 164, and 169 of the Obligations Code.

  9. 9.

    See Arts. 178–181 of the Obligations Code.

  10. 10.

    Art. 168 (3) Obligations Code.

  11. 11.

    See, e.g., Polajnar-Pavčnik (2011), 1284.

  12. 12.

    See, e.g., Vuksanović (2010) Kaznovalna funkcija odškodnin in Ustava, 11.

  13. 13.

    See, e.g., Mežnar (2006), 77; Mežnar (2008), 1284.

  14. 14.

    See Art. 168(2) of the Copyright and Related Rights Act (“Zakon o avtorski in sorodnih pravicah”, Official Gazette 21/1994, with subsequent changes, most recently 110/2013).

  15. 15.

    See Art. 121a (2) of the Industrial Property Act (“Zakon o industrijski lastnin” – ZIL-1, Gazette – 51/06, consolidated version 100/13). See also Art. 17 of the Act on the Protection of Topographies of Integrated Circuits (Official Gazette 81/2006).

  16. 16.

    See Supreme Court Case No. III Ips 126/2007, dated 16 June 2009.

  17. 17.

    Cigoj (1984), 848.

  18. 18.

    Nam hoc natura aequum est neminem cum alterius detrimento fieri locupletiorem”, Pomp. D. 12,6,14.

  19. 19.

    See Art. 190 of the Obligations Code (“Obligacijski zakonik”, Official Gazette 83/2001, 32/2004, 40/2007).

  20. 20.

    Art. 189 of the Obligations Code makes it clear that the wronged person may, after the prescribed period for filing a claim for damages (within 3 years following the discovery of the damage and the liable person, or within 5 years from the occurrence of the damage), still demand restitution amounting to what the wrongdoer has received by the act giving rise to the damage. See, e.g., Higher Court in Ljubljana Case No. III Cp 1164/2009, dated 3 June 2009, and Case No. II Cp 1219/1994, dated 5 April 1995.

  21. 21.

    See, e.g., Supreme Court Case No. II Ips 444/2004, dated 16 March 2006 (the defendant had rented out an apartment of which he was only co-owner; the Court upheld the claim of the other co-owner for damages), Supreme Court Case No. II Ips 364/2000, dated 1 March 2001; here, the plaintiff was co-owner of the house, too. She claimed that the defendant hindered her use of the house, although he himself was only using his part of the house. The court upheld a claim for unjustified enrichment.

  22. 22.

    See art. 243(1) of the Obligations Code. Oddly, the moment of reference is not the time of the conclusion but the time of the breach of contract.

  23. 23.

    See Art. 243(2) of the Obligations Code.

  24. 24.

    See Art. 62(1) of the Competition Act (“Zakon o preprečevanju omejevanja konkurence” – ZPOmK-1, Official Gazette 36/2008, most recent amendment 63/2013).

  25. 25.

    See, e.g., Vlahek and Ahtik (2011), 1344; and Bernard (2011), 503.

  26. 26.

    See, e.g., Higher Court in Ljubljana Case No. I Cpg 1473/2010, dated 18 May 2011.

  27. 27.

    See Arts. 73 and 74 of the Competition Act.

  28. 28.

    See Arts. 184 and 185 of the Copyright Act.

  29. 29.

    See Arts. 73 and 74 of the Competition Act.

  30. 30.

    The Minor Offenses Act (“Zakon o prekrških” – ZP-1, Official Gazette 7/2003, with subsequent amendments, most recently 111/2013).

  31. 31.

    Both “greater” damage and “greater” material benefit are defined in Art. 99(9) of the Penal Code as exceeding EUR 50,000.

  32. 32.

    See Art. 225 of the Penal Code (“Kazenski zakonik”, Official Gazette 55/2008, 39/2009).

  33. 33.

    See Art. 233 (trademarks, industrial designs) and Art. 234 (patents, topographies) of the Penal Code.

  34. 34.

    See Arts. 147–149 of the Penal Code.

  35. 35.

    See Arts. 158–160 of the Penal Code.

  36. 36.

    See Art. 11 of the Minor Offenses Act.

  37. 37.

    See The Liability of Legal Persons for Criminal Offences Act (“Zakon o odgovornosti pravnih oseb za kazniva dejanja”, Official Gazette 59/1999, last amended 57-2402/2012).

  38. 38.

    See Art. 74(1) of the Penal Code.

  39. 39.

    See also Supreme Court Case No. I Ips 34619/2011-416, dated 12 September 2013.

  40. 40.

    See Art. 14 of the Liability of Legal Entities for Criminal Offences Act (“Zakon o odgovornosti pravnih oseb za kazniva dejanja”, Official Gazette 59/1999, most recent amendment 57-2402/2012).

  41. 41.

    See Art. 49 of the Penal Code.

  42. 42.

    See Art. 26 of the Liability of Legal Entities for Criminal Offences Act.

  43. 43.

    “Zakon o odvzemu premoženja nezakonitega izvora”, Official Gazette 81/2011.

Bibliography

  • American Law Institute. 2011. Restatement (third) of restitution and unjust enrichment. St. Paul: American Law Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernard, L. 2011. Računanje škode zaradi kršitve antitrusta. Podjetje in delo: 503–520.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cigoj, S. 1984. Veliki Komentar obligacijskih razmerij. Ljubljana: Uradni list.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mežnar, Š. 2006. Odškodnina kot kazen na primeru medijskih kršitev – zakaj (ne)?. Izbrane teme civilnega prava: 77–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mežnar, Š. 2008. Novejši trendi v odškodninskem pravu. Podjetje in delo: 1284–1293.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polajnar-Pavčnik, A. 2011. Prava mera odškodninskega prava. Podjetje in delo: 1275–1284.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vlahek, A., and M. Ahtik. 2011. Določanje odškodnin v primeru kršitve antitrusta. Podjetje in delo: 1344–1359.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vuksanović, I. 2010. Kaznovalna funkcija odškodnin in Ustava. Pravna praksa: 11.

    Google Scholar 

List of Cases

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Damjan Možina .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Možina, D. (2015). Disgorgement of Profits in Slovenian Law. In: Hondius, E., Janssen, A. (eds) Disgorgement of Profits. Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law, vol 8. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18759-4_21

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics