Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Sklep VIII DoR 71/2009-3 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2010:VIII.DOR.71.2009.3 AI generated

Supreme Court dismisses review application because statutory conditions for admitting review under ZPP are not met.

Case Number Sklep VIII DoR 71/2009-3
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia rejected the applicant's request for review of the second-instance judgment. The applicant argued that the awarded non-material damage compensation was too low and deviated from established Supreme Court practice, citing several prior decisions. The court determined that the conditions for admitting a review under Article 367a of the Act on Civil Procedure Law were not satisfied, leading to the dismissal of the proposal.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 367a of the Act on Civil Procedure Law; Article 367c of the Act on Civil Procedure Law: A review application is inadmissible if the statutory conditions for its admission are not met, regardless of the applicant's assertions regarding the adequacy of the compensation or deviation from precedent.

Keywords

AI generated
review application admission conditions civil procedure law non-material damage supreme court review

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 367a of the Act on Civil Procedure Law
Article 367c of the Act on Civil Procedure Law

Cited Case Law

AI generated
II Ips 339/2007
Appeal dismissed; damages must balance subjective suffering with objective proportionality against similar cases.
II Ips 10/2006
Supreme Court partially allows appeal, increasing non-pecuniary damages for mental suffering due to reduced life activity.
II Ips 721/2008
Supreme Court dismisses appeal on non-property damage compensation, upholding lower courts' assessment of pain and suffering.
II Ips 729/2005
Supreme Court partially allows appeal on non-pecuniary damages but dismisses pecuniary damages claim due to value threshold.
II Ips 880/2006
Supreme Court dismisses appeal on non-pecuniary damages, upholding trial court's assessment of pain and fear compensation.
AI generated
VSL sodba II Cp 1469/2015
Court dismisses appeal on lawyer negligence and interest calculation based on settlement agreement terms.
VSM Sodba I Cp 890/2021
Court partially allows appeal, ordering defendant to pay plaintiff's claim and awarding plaintiff partial appeal costs.
VSL Sodba I Cpg 465/2019
Appeal dismissed; employer liable for workplace injury due to unsafe conditions despite normal weekend work patterns.
VSL sodba I Cpg 365/2010
Appeal dismissed; burden of proof for damage scope remains on claimant despite insurance policy clauses.
VSM Sodba I Cp 298/2019
Civil court partially allows appeal reducing wrongful detention compensation from 13,500 to 7,230 EUR based on established case law.

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

Predlog se zavrne.

[JEDRO]

Ker pogoji za dopustitev revizije iz prvega odstavka 367.a člena ZPP niso podani, je Vrhovno sodišče na podlagi prvega in drugega odstavka 367. c člena ZPP predlog zavrnilo.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Sodišče prve stopnje je razsodilo, da mora tožena stranki tožeči stranki plačati 13.340,00 EUR z zakonskimi zamudnimi obrestmi od 9. 10. 2007 do plačila in ji povrniti pravdne stroške. Višji tožbeni zahtevek je zavrnilo.

2. Sodišče druge stopnje je pritožbi tožene stranke delno ugodilo in sodbo sodišča prve stopnje v ugodilnem delu spremenilo tako, da je zavrnilo tožbeni zahtevek nad zneskom 5.400,00 EUR (torej za znesek 7.940,00 EUR z zakonskimi zamudnimi obrestmi od 9. 10. 2007 do plačila). Glede na spremenjen uspeh pravdnih strank je spremenilo tudi odločitev o stroških postopka, ki so nastali pred sodiščem prve stopnje. V ostalem (do višine prisojenega zneska 5.400,00 EUR z zakonskimi zamudnimi obrestmi od 9. 10. 2007 do plačila) je pritožbo zavrnilo in v nespremenjenem delu potrdilo sodbo sodišča prve stopnje ter odločilo o stroških pritožbenega postopka.

3. Zoper sodbo sodišča druge stopnje je tožeča stranka vložila predlog za dopustitev revizije, v katerem navaja, da je prisojena odškodnina za nepremoženjsko škodo prenizka in odstopa od sodne prakse Vrhovnega sodišča Republike Slovenije. V zvezi s tem izpostavlja nekatere odločbe Vrhovnega sodišča Republike Slovenije (II Ips 339/2007, II Ips 10/2006, II Ips 721/2008, II Ips 729/2005 in II Ips 880/2006).

4. Ker pogoji za dopustitev revizije iz prvega odstavka 367. a člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku (ZPP) niso podani, je Vrhovno sodišče na podlagi prvega in drugega odstavka 367. c člena ZPP predlog zavrnilo.