Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSRS Sklep III DoR 124/2016 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2017:III.DOR.124.2016 AI generated

Supreme Court allows review to determine if ZPIZ-2 Art. 193 is lex specialis over Traffic Insurance Act Art. 18.

Case Number VSRS Sklep III DoR 124/2016
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Partially Allowed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court of Slovenia granted the petition for review regarding a specific legal question concerning the relationship between two statutes. The applicant argued that Article 193 of the Pension and Disability Insurance Act acts as lex specialis to Article 18 of the Traffic Insurance Act, citing inconsistent lower court practices. The court found the conditions for review met to ensure legal certainty and uniform application of the law.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 193 of the Pension and Disability Insurance Act; Article 18 of the Act on Mandatory Traffic Insurance: The Supreme Court allows review to determine whether the former constitutes lex specialis vis-a-vis the latter.

Keywords

AI generated
lex specialis Pension and Disability Insurance Act Mandatory Traffic Insurance Act review admissibility legal certainty uniform application of law statutory interpretation

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 193 of the Pension and Disability Insurance Act
Article 18 of the Act on Mandatory Traffic Insurance
Paragraph 1 of Article 367.a of the Act on Civil Procedure
AI generated
VSL sodba II Cp 3832/2011
Appeal dismissed; maintenance costs reduced by state grants and child allowance, remainder split by ability.
VSL sodba I Cp 1715/2012
Court rejects appeal; agent's services were for investor, not client, so no commission due.
VSL sklep II Cp 1272/2015
Appeal allowed; appeal court quashes first instance judgment due to procedural error regarding good faith determination.
VDSS Sklep Pdp 349/2025
Court awards partial costs to plaintiff based on 82% success rate after partial withdrawal of claim.
VSL sodba II Cp 2327/2015
Appeal dismissed; co-ownership usage rights distinct from division, preventing usage fee claim despite division order.

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 glede vprašanja, ali je določba 193. člena Zakona o pokojninskem in invalidskem zavarovanju (ZPIZ-2) glede na določbo 18. člena Zakona o obveznih zavarovanjih v prometu lex specialis.

[JEDRO]

Revizija se dopusti glede vprašanja, ali je določba 193. člena Zakona o pokojninskem in invalidskem zavarovanju (ZPIZ-2) glede na določbo 18. člena Zakona o obveznih zavarovanjih v prometu lex specialis.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Sodišče prve stopnje je (po dopustitvi spremembe tožbe) toženki naložilo plačilo 5.601,90 EUR z zakonskimi zamudnimi obrestmi, v preostanku pa je tožbeni zahtevek zavrnilo. Odločilo je še o pravdnih stroških.

2. Sodišče druge stopnje je pritožbo tožnice deloma zavrglo, deloma (glede plačila 6.027,77 EUR s pripadki) pa zavrnilo. Odločilo je še o pritožbenih stroških.

3. Zoper sodbo sodišča druge stopnje je tožnica vložila predlog za dopustitev revizije, v katerem zatrjuje zmotno uporabo materialnega prava. Pomembnost predlaganega vprašanja utemeljuje z zagotovitvijo pravne varnosti in enotne uporabe prava. Zatrjuje neenotno sodno praksi višjih sodišč ob neobstoju sodne prakse Vrhovnega sodišča.

4. Predlog je utemeljen.

5. Pogoji za dopustitev revizije iz prvega odstavka 367.a člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku so izpolnjeni glede vprašanja, navedenega v izreku tega sklepa. Vrhovno sodišče je zato revizijo dopustilo.