Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSRS Sklep VIII R 13/2022 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2022:VIII.R.13.2022 AI generated

Vrhovno sodišče potrdilo pristojnost delovnega sodišča pri tožbi delodajalca, čeprav ni delavec. Delovno sodišče pristojno za vse spore o delovnem razmerju. Tožba delodajalca ne izključuje pristojnosti. Delovno sodišče pristojno za vse spore o delovnem razmerju. Tožba delodajalca ne izključuje pristojnosti.

Case Number VSRS Sklep VIII R 13/2022
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court of Slovenia ruled that the Labour Court in Maribor is competent to hear the case. Although the plaintiff is an employer rather than an employee, the court determined that jurisdiction over disputes regarding employment relationships remains with the Labour Court regardless of who files the suit. The court held that while only employees have the right to court protection in such disputes, the lack of standing by the plaintiff does not affect the court's jurisdiction.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

5. člen ZDSS-1; 200. člen ZDR-1: The Labour Court is competent for all disputes concerning the establishment, existence, duration, and termination of an employment relationship, even if filed by an employer who lacks the right to court protection in such matters.

Keywords

AI generated
Labour Court jurisdiction Employment relationship disputes Employer standing Competent court determination ZDSS-1 provision ZDR-1 provision Procedural competence

Cited Legislation

AI generated
5. člen ZDSS-1
200. člen ZDR-1
25. člen ZPP
AI generated
VSL Sklep I Cp 1941/2020
Appeal allowed; Supreme Court quashes first-instance judgment for procedural violation regarding evidence assessment under ZPP. The court found the lower court's selective evaluation of evidence violated procedural rules, necessitating a retrial. The Supreme Court ruled that the first-instance court must independently re-evaluate all evidence without being bound by the negative findings of the appellate court, ensuring a fair retrial without reopening the entire main hearing unless absolutely necessary. The decision emphasizes that procedural violations requiring a new evidence assessment must be corrected by the lower court to avoid unnecessary delays and respect the principle of two-instance jurisdiction.
UPRS sodba I U 432/2013
Court dismisses tax appeal, ruling interest calculation and property declaration procedures were lawful.
VSRS Sklep II DoR 394/2020
Supreme Court dismisses review application as inadmissible due to failure to meet statutory review conditions under ZPP.
Sklep II DoR 426/2011
Supreme Court dismisses appeal permission request due to incomplete submission of legal grounds and procedural violations.
VSRS Sklep III DoR 60/2022
Supreme Court dismisses appeal admissibility request due to failure to meet statutory requirements under ZPP. The applicant failed to specify violated legal rules or demonstrate the importance of the legal questions. The court rejected the request because the applicant did not provide the necessary circumstances showing the importance of the legal questions, nor did they specify the violated legal rule, which are mandatory components of an appeal admissibility request under the Code of Civil Procedure. The court decided to reject the request because the applicant failed to meet the formal prerequisites for a decision on the appeal admissibility request, as they did not provide the necessary circumstances showing the importance of the legal questions, nor did they specify the violated legal rule, which are mandatory components of an appeal admissibility request under the Code of Civil Procedure. The court decided to reject the request because the applicant failed to meet the formal prerequisites for a decision on the appeal admissibility request, as they did not provide the necessary circumstances showing the importance of the legal questions, nor did they specify the violated legal rule, which are mandatory components of an appeal admissibility request under the Code of Civil Procedure.

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

Za odločanje v sporu je pristojno Delovno sodišče v Mariboru, Oddelek v Slovenj Gradcu.

[JEDRO]

Če tožbo v sporu, za katerega je pristojno delovno sodišče, vloži oseba, ki nima te pravice, to na pristojnost sodišča ne vpliva.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Tožnica je s tožbo, vloženo na Upravno sodišče Republike Slovenije, zahtevala odpravo odločbe toženca št. 900-1/2022-7 z dne 25. 3. 2022.

2. Upravno sodišče Republike Slovenije, Oddelek v Mariboru, se je s sklepom II U 142/2022 z dne 26. 5. 2022 izreklo za stvarno nepristojno ter zadevo po pravnomočnosti sklepa odstopilo Delovnemu sodišču v Mariboru, Oddelku v Slovenj Gradcu. Navedlo je, da spada spor o odločitvi toženca o pritožbi delavca zoper odpoved pogodbe o zaposlitvi na področje delovnega prava, zato je za odločanje o sporu na podlagi a) in b) točke prvega odstavka 5. člena Zakona o delovnih in socialnih sodiščih (ZDSS-1, Ur. l. RS št. 2/2004) pristojno delovno sodišče.

3. Delovno sodišče v Mariboru, Oddelek v Slovenj Gradcu je sprožilo spor o pristojnosti. Navedlo je, da gre v zadevi sicer za spor v zvezi s prenehanjem delovnega razmerja delavcu, vendar pa bi se v delovnem sporu lahko obravnaval le, če bi bili stranki delavec in delodajalec. Spor med delodajalcem, ki je javni zavod in svetom zavoda, ni individualni delovni spor, za katerega bi bilo pristojno delovno sodišče.

4. Za odločanje v sporu je pristojno delovno sodišče.

5. Iz a) točke prvega odstavka 5. člena ZDSS-1 izhaja, da sodišče v individualnem delovnem sporu odloča o sklenitvi, obstoju, trajanju in prenehanju delovnega razmerja. Med navedene spore sodi tudi spor o zakonitosti odpovedi pogodbe o zaposlitvi. Sodno varstvo v takem sporu je na podlagi tretjega odstavka 200. člena Zakona o delovnih razmerjih (ZDR-1, Ur. l. RS št. 21/2013 in naslednji) zagotovljeno le delavcu. Kljub temu to v primeru, če tožbo v sporu, za katerega je pristojno delovno sodišče, vloži oseba, ki nima te pravice, to ne vpliva na pristojnost sodišča.

6. Glede na obrazloženo je vrhovno sodišče na podlagi drugega odstavka 25. člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku (ZPP, Ur. l. RS št. 26/99 in naslednji) odločilo, da je za odločanje v tem sporu pristojno Delovno sodišče v Mariboru, Oddelek v Slovenj Gradcu.