Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSRS sklep VIII DoR 78/2015 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2015:VIII.DOR.78.2015 AI generated

Appeal for review of mobing damages dismissed due to lack of admissibility conditions under ZPP 367a. paragraph 1.

Case Number VSRS sklep VIII DoR 78/2015
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 dismissed the applicant's request for permission to appeal the first-instance judgment denying mobing damages. The lower court found that the defendant's actions did not constitute mobing after the applicant ceased serving as director, and the applicant argued for a collective assessment of behaviors and procedural errors. The Supreme Court rejected the request because the statutory conditions for admissibility under Article 367a of the Civil Procedure Act were not met.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 367a paragraph 1 of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 367c paragraph 2 of the Civil Procedure Act: A request for permission to appeal is inadmissible if the conditions for admissibility prescribed by law are not fulfilled.

Keywords

AI generated
mobing damages admissibility of appeal Civil Procedure Act collective assessment procedural error

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 367a paragraph 1 of the Civil Procedure Act
Article 367c paragraph 2 of the Civil Procedure Act
AI generated
VDSS sodba Pdp 528/2015
Labor court dismisses harassment claim and resignation compensation due to lack of systematic abuse and failure to prove impossibility of continued employment.
VDSS Sodba Pdp 668/2022
Appeal dismissed: occasional conflicts and sharp criticism do not constitute workplace harassment under Slovenian law.
VDSS sodba Pdp 1086/2013
Employment dispute dismissed: Court rejects mobbing and discrimination claims due to lack of evidence of unequal treatment.
VDSS sklep Pdp 255/2016
Appeal court quashes first instance judgment for failure to properly evaluate witness testimony on workplace harassment.
VSRS Sklep VIII DoR 186/2022-6
Supreme Court rejects review application regarding employer liability for workplace harassment and wrongful dismissal. The court found no legal grounds for the applicant's claims.

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]

Predlog ni utemeljen, saj ne obstajajo pogoji za dopustitev iz 367a. člena ZPP.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Sodišče prve stopnje je zavrnilo tožnikov zahtevek za plačilo odškodnine zaradi mobinga v višini 5.400,00 EUR. Ugotovilo je, da v času po 17. 1. 2013, ko je tožniku prenehala funkcija direktorja pri toženi stranki, do prenehanja delovnega razmerja tožnika pri toženi stranki na podlagi redne odpovedi pogodbe o zaposlitvi iz poslovnega razloga z dne 18. 3. 2013, pri tožbeno zatrjevanih ravnanjih ni šlo za izvajanje mobinga s strani tožene stranke.

2. Sodišče druge stopnje je zavrnilo pritožbo tožeče stranke in potrdilo sodbo sodišča prve stopnje.

3. Tožeča stranka je vložila predlog za dopustitev revizije. V njem izpostavlja predvsem vprašanje, ali je sodišče pravilno presojalo vsako ravnanje tožene stranke posebej, ali bi moralo vsaj ravnanja presojati skupno. Meni, da ravnanja tožene stranke ustrezajo pravnemu standardu mobinga. Navaja, da pri pritožbenem navajanju glede odvzema direktorskega časa ne gre za novoto. Postavlja vprašanje, ali je sodišče prve stopnje naredilo dokazno oceno v skladu z napotki 8. člena ZPP. Meni, da pritožbeno sodišče ni obrazloženo odgovorilo na pritožbeni očitek o napačni dokazni oceni prvostopenjskega sodišča.

4. Predlog ni utemeljen, saj ne obstajajo pogoji za dopustitev iz 367a. člena ZPP. Zato ga je Vrhovno sodišče na podlagi drugega odstavka 367c. člena ZPP kot neutemeljenega zavrnilo.