Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSRS Sklep VIII DoR 120/2022-6 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2022:VIII.DOR.120.2022.6 AI generated

Supreme Court rejects review application as no significant legal issue exists for uniform law application.

Case Number VSRS Sklep VIII DoR 120/2022-6
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 second-instance judgment. The applicant argued that the first instance court failed to explicitly request answers from the expert regarding the change in disability percentage, and that the second instance court improperly relied on the expert's prior knowledge. The court determined that these procedural points did not constitute a significant legal issue requiring uniform application of law or development of jurisprudence. Consequently, the review application was dismissed under the relevant provisions of the Act on Civil Procedure.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

367.a(1) ZPP; 367.c(2) ZPP: A review application is rejected when the decision does not address a legal issue significant for ensuring legal certainty, uniform application of law, or the development of law through judicial practice.

Keywords

AI generated
review application civil procedure legal certainty uniform law expert opinion disability assessment second instance

Cited Legislation

AI generated
367.a(1) of the Act on Civil Procedure 1 (ZPP)
367.c(2) of the Act on Civil Procedure 1 (ZPP)
AI generated
VSRS Sklep VIII DoR 251/2021-8
Supreme Court dismisses appeal request due to lack of lawyer qualification and defective supplement. The plaintiff failed to prove legal qualification and the supplement lacked required specificity. Consequently, the appeal request and its supplement were rejected under the Civil Procedure Act.
VDSS sodba Psp 468/2012
Appeal dismissed; disability pension denied as combined 40% disease-related impairment falls below 50% statutory threshold.
VDSS Sodba Psp 8/2017
Appeal dismissed; disability pension for physical impairment denied as ankle condition does not meet statutory definition of impairment.
VDSS Sodba Psp 184/2023
Social court dismisses appeal regarding invalidity pension for pre-employment injury not covered by mandatory insurance. Appeal rejected due to lack of mandatory insurance coverage at time of injury. Court upheld first instance decision based on statutory insurance requirements. Appeal dismissed because injury occurred before mandatory insurance coverage began. Court correctly applied law regarding pre-employment injury recognition. Decision confirms no pension rights for injuries outside mandatory insurance scope. Appeal rejected due to failure to meet mandatory insurance conditions. Court ruled against pension claim based on timing of injury relative to coverage. Appeal dismissed as facts and law support first instance judgment. Outcome: Appeal rejected, first instance decision confirmed. Key issue: Mandatory insurance timing for invalidity pension claims.
VDSS Sodba Psp 165/2024
Appeal dismissed; disability pension denied as medical conditions did not meet statutory injury list criteria.

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 se zavrne.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Sodišče prve stopnje je zavrnilo tožbeni zahtevek za odpravo odločb toženke z dne 27. 10. 2020 in z dne 22. 4. 2020 ter za priznanje pravice do invalidnine za telesno okvaro.

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

3. Zoper pravnomočno sodbo sodišča druge stopnje je tožnik vložil predlog za dopustitev revizije glede vprašanj:

- "ali je sodišče prve stopnje v postopku ravnalo pravilno, ko od izvedenca ni izrecno zahtevalo, naj odgovori na vprašanja v zvezi s spremembo ugotovljenega procenta telesne okvare z 80% na 0%;

- ali je sodišče druge stopnje ravnalo pravilno, ko je obrazložilo, da je bil izvedenec s spornimi vprašanji dejansko seznanjen, kar naj bi bil razlog, da mu ni bilo treba odgovoriti na sporno vprašanje, in s čimer je tudi odgovorilo na pritožbeni očitek bistvene kršitve določb pravdnega postopka".

4. Predlog ni utemeljen.

5. Vrhovno sodišče na podlagi prvega odstavka 367.a člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku 1 (v nadaljevanju ZPP) dopusti revizijo, če je od odločitve vrhovnega sodišča mogoče pričakovati odločitev o pravnem vprašanju, ki je pomembno za zagotovitev pravne varnosti, enotne uporabe prava ali za razvoj prava preko sodne prakse. Vrhovno sodišče dopusti revizijo zlasti v naslednjih primerih: če gre za pravno vprašanje glede katerega odločitev sodišča druge stopnje odstopa od sodne prakse vrhovnega sodišča; če gre za pravno vprašanje, glede katerega sodne prakse vrhovnega sodišča ni, še zlasti, če sodna praksa višjih sodišč ni enotna; ali če gre za pravno vprašanje, glede katerega sodna praksa vrhovnega sodišča ni enotna.

6. Vrhovno sodišče ugotavlja, da pogoji iz prvega odstavka 367.a člena ZPP niso izpolnjeni, zato je na podlagi drugega odstavka 367.c člena ZPP zavrnilo predlog za dopustitev revizije.

7. Odločitev je bila sprejeta soglasno v senatu, navedenem v uvodu tega sklepa.

1 Ur. l. RS, št. 26/99 in nadaljnji.