Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSRS Sklep III DoR 141/2022 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2022:III.DOR.141.2022 AI generated

Supreme Court allows review regarding automatic invoicing of higher medical fees under a 2017 agreement despite later tariff annex adoption.

Case Number VSRS Sklep III DoR 141/2022
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 the Republic of Slovenia granted permission for a review of the second-instance judgment on a specific legal issue. The appellant argued that the defendant should have automatically invoiced higher medical service prices based on the fourth paragraph of Article 9 of the 2017 General Agreement, even though this agreement was adopted after the relevant tariff annex to the collective agreement for doctors and dentists was accepted. The court decided to allow the review because the conditions set forth in the first paragraph of Article 367.a of the Act on Civil Procedure Law were met for this particular disputed legal question.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 367.a paragraph 1 of the Act on Civil Procedure Law; Article 324 paragraph 7 of the Act on Civil Procedure Law: The Supreme Court may permit a review of a judgment if a specific legal issue regarding the automatic invoicing of higher prices under a general agreement is raised, provided the statutory conditions for review are fulfilled.

Keywords

AI generated
review permission medical fee invoicing collective agreement tariff annex civil procedure law automatic calculation contractual obligation

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 367.a paragraph 1 of the Act on Civil Procedure Law
Article 324 paragraph 7 of the Act on Civil Procedure Law
AI generated
VSL Sodba I Cpg 509/2021
Court partially allows appeal correcting default interest start date based on contractual 30-day payment term.
VSL sodba I Cpg 170/2016
Court allows appeal against enforcement order, partially revoking it based on CMR liability exceptions and wilful misconduct interpretation.
VSL Sodba II Cp 865/2018
Copyright license claim partially allowed; court rejects license analogy and applies Supreme Court's cable retransmission fee standard.
VSL sodba II Cp 2781/2016
Self-employed person's claim for lost profit dismissed; procedural costs adjusted due to partial withdrawal.
VSK sodba I Cp 1593/2005
Appeal dismissed; court rejected private expert opinion in favor of official court-appointed expert under ZPP rules.

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 bi morala tožena stranka na podlagi četrtega odstavka 9. člena Splošnega dogovora za leto 2017 sama avtomatično obračunati (višje) cene zdravstvenih storitev, čeprav je bil Splošni dogovor za pogodbeno leto 2017 sprejet šele 21. 6. 2017, torej po sprejemu Aneksa k posebnemu tarifnemu delu Kolektivne pogodbe za zdravnike in zobozdravnike v Republiki Sloveniji?

[JEDRO]

Revizija se dopusti glede vprašanja, ali bi morala tožena stranka na podlagi četrtega odstavka 9. člena Splošnega dogovora za leto 2017 sama avtomatično obračunati (višje) cene zdravstvenih storitev, čeprav je bil Splošni dogovor za pogodbeno leto 2017 sprejet šele 21. 6. 2017, torej po sprejemu Aneksa k posebnemu tarifnemu delu Kolektivne pogodbe za zdravnike in zobozdravnike v Republiki Sloveniji.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Sodišče prve stopnje je odločilo, da je tožbeni zahtevek za plačilo 173.240,00 EUR s pripadki po temelju utemeljen (I. točka izreka), zaradi delnega umika tožbe pa je ustavilo postopek glede zahtevka za plačilo 5,806.050,39 EUR z zakonskimi zamudnimi obrestmi od vložitve tožbe (II. točka izreka).

2. Sodišče druge stopnje je zavrnilo pritožbo tožene stranke in sodbo sodišča prve stopnje potrdilo (I. točka izreka).

3. Zoper sodbo sodišča druge stopnje vlaga tožena stranka predlog za dopustitev revizije.

4. Revizijsko sodišče ugotavlja, da so izpolnjeni pogoji za dopustitev revizije iz prvega odstavka 367.a člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku (v nadaljevanju ZPP) glede v izreku opredeljenega spornega pravnega vprašanja. Revizijo je zato glede njega dopustilo.

5. Sklep je bil sprejet soglasno (sedmi odstavek 324. člena ZPP).