Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Sklep III DoR 90/2013 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2014:III.DOR.90.2013 AI generated

Supreme Court allows appeal on whether traffic insurance law or pension law is lex specialis for claim basis.

Case Number Sklep III DoR 90/2013
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Partially Allowed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court granted the applicant's request to permit a review of the second-instance judgment regarding the legal basis for their claim. The applicant argued that Article 18 of the Traffic Insurance Act or Articles 271 and 274 of the Pension Insurance Act should serve as the lex specialis. The court decided to allow the review because the conditions for admitting an appeal under the first paragraph of Section 367.a of the Act on Civil Procedure Law were met concerning this specific legal question.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Section 367.a of the Act on Civil Procedure Law; The Supreme Court may permit a review of a judgment if the legal question concerns whether a specific statutory provision constitutes the lex specialis for the claim's legal basis.

Keywords

AI generated
lex specialis traffic insurance law pension insurance law civil procedure law review of judgment legal basis claim substantiation

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Section 367.a of the Act on Civil Procedure Law
AI generated
VSL sodba I Cpg 958/2013
Appeal dismissed; shelter regulations bind keeper to pay seized animal care costs from violator.
VSL sodba I Cpg 40/2001
Appeal dismissed; no written form required for power of attorney to conclude assignment contracts under Slovenian law.
VSL Sodba I Cp 328/2018
Insurance claim dismissed because plaintiff failed to prove the accident was not intentional or planned.
VSL sodba I Cpg 1328/99
Plaintiff dismissed for failing to prove loan contract; burden of proof remains on plaintiff despite defendant's receipt of funds.
VSL Sodba I Cp 2462/2017
Appeal dismissed; insurance coverage limited to equipment owned at policy inception due to lack of proof.

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

Predlogu se ugodi in se revizija dopusti o pravnem vprašanju, ali je pravna podlaga za zahtevek tožeče stranke določba 18. člena Zakona o obveznih zavarovanjih v prometu (ZOZP) ali določbe 271. in 274. člena Zakona o pokojninskem in invalidskem zavarovanju (ZPIZ-1) oziroma ali so določbe ZPIZ-1 glede na določbe ZOZP lex specialis.

[JEDRO]

Dopuščena revizija - ali je pravna podlaga za zahtevek tožeče stranke določba 18. člena ZOZP ali določbe 271. in 274. člena ZPIZ-1 oziroma ali so določbe ZPIZ-1 glede na določbe ZOZP lex specialis.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Sodišče druge stopnje je zavrnilo pritožbo tožeče stranke ter potrdilo sodbo sodišča prve stopnje, s katero je bil zavrnjen tožbeni zahtevek za plačilo 7.451,41 EUR z zakonskimi zamudnimi obrestmi od zneska 8.068,76 EUR od 20. 7. 2012 do 21. 9. 2012 in od zneska 7.451,41 EUR od 21. 9. 2012 dalje.

2. Zoper sodbo sodišča druge stopnje je vložila predlog za dopustitev revizije tožeča stranka.

3. Revizijsko sodišče ugotavlja, da so pogoji za dopustitev revizije iz prvega odstavka 367.a člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku (v nadaljevanju ZPP) izpolnjeni glede pravnega vprašanja, navedenega v izreku tega sklepa. Zato je predlogu ugodilo in revizijo glede tega vprašanja dopustilo.