Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSRS Sklep II DoR 572/2020 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2021:II.DOR.572.2020 AI generated

Supreme Court dismisses review application as first-instance damages assessment was legally sound.

Case Number VSRS Sklep II DoR 572/2020
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 rejected the applicant's request to permit a review of the final judgment. The lower courts ruled that the defendant must pay €3,950 in damages for mental suffering caused by the deletion of the applicant's permanent residence registration, rejecting a higher claim. The Supreme Court found the first-instance assessment of pain intensity and duration appropriate and denied the review request because the statutory conditions for granting a review were not met.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Zakon o pravdnem postopku (ZPP) 367.a in 367.c: A review application is inadmissible if the lower court's factual findings and legal assessment of damages for mental suffering are correct and do not warrant a retrial.

Keywords

AI generated
review application mental suffering damages residence registration deletion medical expert opinion ZPP review conditions

Cited Legislation

AI generated
367.a paragraph 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPP)
367.c paragraph 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPP)
AI generated
VSL sklep I Cp 576/2012
Appeal court vacates first-instance judgment for retrial due to procedural error regarding late evidence submission.
VDSS sodba Pdp 1029/2015
Appeal dismissed: No deadline for monetary compensation claim exists before termination of employment contract proceedings conclude.
VSL Sodba II Cp 593/2023
Civil court partially allows appeal reducing damages for reduced life activity from 35k to 25k EUR.
VDSS sodba Pdp 759/2015
Appeal partially allowed; court reduced costs and rejected claims regarding evidence of drunk driving. The court found the employer liable for damages caused by a traffic accident. The court rejected the employer's appeal regarding the evidence of intoxication and the causal link between alcohol and the accident. The court partially allowed the appeal by reducing the awarded costs based on the parties' success rates. The court held that the employer was liable for damages resulting from a traffic accident caused by the employee under the Labor Relations Act. The court found the employer's appeal regarding the evidence of intoxication and the causal link between alcohol and the accident to be unfounded. The court partially allowed the appeal by reducing the awarded costs based on the parties' success rates. The court held that the employer was liable for damages resulting from a traffic accident caused by the employee under the Labor Relations Act.
Sklep II Ips 229/2005
Appeal dismissed because individual claims in joint liability do not exceed the revision threshold. The court ruled that revision rights are assessed per claim, not the total. Since no single claim exceeded the limit, the appeal was rejected.

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 za dopustitev revizije se zavrne.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Sodišče prve stopnje je razsodilo, da je toženka dolžna tožniku plačati odškodnino v znesku 3.950,00 EUR z zakonskimi zamudnimi obrestmi od 8. 3. 2017 dalje v štirih obrokih. Višji tožbeni zahtevek pa je zavrnilo.

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

3. Zoper sodbo sodišča druge stopnje tožnik vlaga predlog za dopustitev revizije, v katerem Vrhovnemu sodišču zastavlja naslednja vprašanja:

4. 1) ali je pravilna odločitev nižjih sodišč, da pri ugotavljanju in presoji duševnih bolečin, tako po intenziteti kot tudi po trajanju, ki jih je tožnik utrpel zaradi izbrisa iz registra stalnega prebivalstva, ni potrebno postaviti sodnega izvedenca medicinske stroke; in

2) ali je upoštevajoč ugotovljena dejstva odmera višine prisojene odškodnine ustrezna.

5. Predlog ni utemeljen.

6. Ker niso izpolnjeni pogoji, ki jih za dopustitev revizije določa prvi odstavek 367.a člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku (v nadaljevanju ZPP), je Vrhovno sodišče zavrnilo predlog v skladu z drugim odstavkom 367.c člena ZPP.

7. Vrhovno sodišče je odločalo v senatu, ki je naveden v uvodu odločbe. Odločitev je sprejelo soglasno (sedmi odstavek 324. člena ZPP).