Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSRS Sklep II DoR 391/2016 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2017:II.DOR.391.2016 AI generated

Supreme Court allows review to examine if defendant unlawfully infringed plaintiff's privacy and reputation.

Case Number VSRS Sklep II DoR 391/2016
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Partially Allowed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The first-instance court partially granted the claim for 5,000 EUR damages while rejecting the higher request. The defendant appealed, arguing the lower court misapplied law regarding the standard for defamation and citing inconsistent regional court practices. The Supreme Court found the review admissible to examine whether the defendant unlawfully infringed the plaintiff's privacy and reputation.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

367. a odst. 1 in 367. c odst. 3 ZPP: Review is permitted to examine whether the defendant unlawfully infringed the plaintiff's privacy and reputation.

Keywords

AI generated
review admissibility privacy infringement reputation damage defamation standard ZPP review

Cited Legislation

AI generated
367. a odst. 1 ZPP
367. c odst. 3 ZPP
AI generated
VSL sklep I Cp 3975/2010
Real estate agent dismissed for failing to verify property title and warn buyer of co-ownership defects.
VSC sodba Cp 1281/2009
Appeal dismissed; plaintiff failed to prove causal link between work injury and thrombosis due to withdrawal of expert evidence.
VSL sodba II Cp 3385/2011
Court allows appeal to reduce damages by valorizing already paid advance payment under Obligations Act.
VSL Sodba II Cp 2062/2021
Appeal court allows tenant eviction claim by ruling unlawful possession interference constitutes tort liability.
VSK sklep I Cp 800/2014
Appeal allowed; appeal court quashes first instance judgment for procedural violations of the principle of contradiction. The appeal court found that the first instance court failed to conduct a hearing with the plaintiff as requested, violating the principle of contradiction under Article 339 of the Civil Procedure Act. The court held that the first instance court's refusal to conduct a hearing with the plaintiff was a procedural violation of the principle of contradiction under Article 339 of the Civil Procedure Act. The appeal court quashed the first instance judgment and remanded the case for a new trial to ensure the plaintiff's right to be heard is respected. The appeal court found that the first instance court's refusal to conduct a hearing with the plaintiff was a procedural violation of the principle of contradiction under Article 339 of the Civil Procedure Act. The court held that the first instance court's refusal to conduct a hearing with the plaintiff was a procedural violation of the principle of contradiction under Article 339 of the Civil Procedure Act. The appeal court quashed the first instance judgment and remanded the case for a new trial to ensure the plaintiff's right to be heard is respected.

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

Revizija se dopusti v smeri preizkusa materialnopravne presoje vprašanja ali je toženec protipravno posegel v zasebnost tožnika in v njegovo čast in dobro ime.

[JEDRO]

Revizija se dopusti v smeri preizkusa materialnopravne presoje vprašanja ali je toženec protipravno posegel v zasebnost tožnika in v njegovo čast in dobro ime.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Sodišče prve stopnje je delno ugodilo tožbenemu zahtevku in tožniku prisodilo odškodnino v višini 5.000,00 EUR z zakonskimi zamudnimi obrestmi od vložitve tožbe dalje, višji tožbeni zahtevek je zavrnilo in odločilo o stroških pravdnega postopka.

2. Sodišče druge stopnje je pritožbo toženca zavrnilo in potrdilo izpodbijano sodbo sodišča prve stopnje.

3. Toženec je vložil predlog za dopustitev revizije zoper pravnomočno sodbo. Obrazloženo izpostavi razloge, zaradi katerih meni, da je sodišče pri presoji pojma protipravnosti in presoji pravnega standarda razžalitve zmotno uporabilo materialno pravo, pri čemer se sklicuje na judikate Ustavnega in Vrhovnega sodišča, ter prakso Evropskega sodišča za človekove pravice. Glede izpostavljenih vprašanj izkaže tudi neenotno prakso Višjega sodišča v Kopru.

4. Predlog je utemeljen.

5. Vrhovno sodišče je ugotovilo, da so glede vprašanja, izpostavljenega v predlogu in opredeljenega v izreku tega sklepa, podani pogoji za dopustitev revizije iz prvega odstavka 367.a člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku in je zato v tako začrtanem obsegu revizijo dopustilo (tretji odstavek 367. c člena istega zakona).