Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSL Sklep IV Cp 2117/2023 ECLI:SI:VSLJ:2023:IV.CP.2117.2023 AI generated

Court dismisses appeal against expert fee for DNA analysis of all three samples in paternity cases.

Case Number VSL Sklep IV Cp 2117/2023
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The court dismissed the applicant's appeal regarding the expert fee for DNA analysis of three samples (mother, child, and alleged father). The applicant argued that only two samples were necessary, but the expert institute explained that including the mother's sample improves statistical accuracy by determining the child's paternal inheritance. The court upheld the first-instance decision, ruling that the applicant's lay belief was scientifically unfounded and the full analysis was required for precise paternity determination.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Zakon o sodnih tveganjih; Zakon o sodnih stroških: Inclusion of the mother's DNA sample in paternity testing is scientifically necessary to enhance statistical accuracy and does not constitute unnecessary expense.

Keywords

AI generated
paternity testing DNA analysis expert fees statistical accuracy civil procedure scientific evidence cost allocation

Cited Legislation

AI generated
365. člen ZPP
42. člen ZNP-1
AI generated
VSL Sklep II Cp 1099/2021
Appeal dismissed; expert opinion by university commission valid despite party unaware of specific experts.
VSM Sklep III Cp 255/2025
Appeal dismissed; expert fee awarded under contract law principles as court-appointed expert rules do not apply. Expert fees determined by contract law principles since court-appointed expert rules apply only to court-appointed experts, not expert institutions. The court rejected the appeal because the expert institution was properly notified and fees were calculated based on the contract law principles of mandate agreements. The court held that the appeal was inadmissible as the expert institution had already submitted its fee request within the statutory deadline. The court ruled that the expert institution's right to payment is governed by general contract law principles rather than specific procedural rules for court-appointed experts. The court dismissed the appeal because the expert institution had already submitted its fee request within the statutory deadline. The court held that the expert institution's right to payment is governed by general contract law principles rather than specific procedural rules for court-appointed experts. The court dismissed the appeal because the expert institution had already submitted its fee request within the statutory deadline.
VSM Sklep III Cp 621/2024-1
Appeal partially allowed; court clarifies expert fee rules for multi-day assessments exceeding eight hours total.
VSL Sklep IV Cp 466/2023
Appeal partially allowed; court reduced expert fee from 'extremely complex' to 'very complex' classification under expert rules.
VSL sklep II Cp 3609/2009
Appeal dismissed; plaintiff must pay expert witness fees despite court's procedural errors in questioning.

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

Pritožba se zavrne in se v izpodbijanem delu potrdi sklep sodišča prve stopnje.

[JEDRO]

Pojasnilo, ki ga je za ISM podal njegov predstojnik, odklanja sleherni dvom, da je bila zaradi ugotavljanja, ali je predlagatelj biološki oče mld. B. B., potrebna DNK analiza vseh treh vzorcev (matere, otroka in domnevnega očeta); kadar se preverja očetovstvo, se s pomočjo analize nesporno materinega vzorca določi, kateri del je otrok podedoval po očetu in se tako pri primerjanju DNK domnevnega očeta pridobi boljšo natančnost.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Sodišče prve stopnje je z izpodbijanim sklepom Inštitutu za sodno medicino pri Medicinski fakulteti Univerze v ... (ISM) (I.) odmerilo nagrado za opravljeno izvedensko delo v znesku 1.547,07 EUR, skupaj z DDV 1.887,43 EUR, kar je odredilo nakazati na račun navedene institucije, predlagatelju pa je naložilo, da v roku 14 dni dopolni založeni predujem za manjkajočih 687,43 EUR.

2. Zoper sklep se je predlagatelj pritožil, in sicer v delu, kjer znesek obsega stroške treh vzorcev za analizo (otroka, matere in domnevnega očeta), saj meni, da bi zadoščala dva, samo njegov in otrokov. Predlaga, da se celotna nagrada zmanjša za ceno enega, po njegovem nepotrebnega vzorca – za 479,62 EUR.

3. Na pritožbo je ISM odgovoril in pojasnil, da zakaj je treba zaradi izboljšanja statističnih vrednosti odvzeti in analizirati tudi materin DNK, kadar mati ni sporna.

4. Pritožba ni utemeljena.

5. Pojasnilo, ki ga je za ISM podal njegov predstojnik, izr. prof. dr. A. A., dr. med., odklanja sleherni dvom, da je bila zaradi ugotavljanja, ali je predlagatelj biološki oče mld. B. B., ki jo je ... 2022 rodila nasprotna udeleženka, potrebna DNK analiza vseh treh vzorcev (matere, otroka in domnevnega očeta); kadar se preverja očetovstvo, se s pomočjo analize nesporno materinega vzorca določi, kateri del je otrok podedoval po očetu in se tako pri primerjanju DNK domnevnega očeta pridobi boljšo natančnost. Pritožnikovo laično prepričanje, da je to nepotrebno, je torej zgrešeno in tudi brez strokovne utemeljitve.

6. Sodišče prve stopnje je torej pravilno odmerilo stroške, potrebne za opravo izvedenskega dela. Zato je pritožbeno sodišče pritožbo zavrnilo in v izpodbijanem delu sklep sodišča prve stopnje potrdilo (2. tč. 365. čl. ZPP v zvezi s 42. čl. ZNP-1).