Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSRS Sklep VIII DoR 235/2024-4 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2024:VIII.DOR.235.2024.4 AI generated

Supreme Court rejects review request against final ruling dismissing appeal against second instance decision. Review requests only apply to final judgments or closing rulings.

Case Number VSRS Sklep VIII DoR 235/2024-4
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court dismissed the defendant's request for permission to file a review against the final ruling that rejected the plaintiff's appeal. The first instance court had fully rejected the plaintiff's claims regarding wrongful termination and continued employment, while the second instance court partially overturned the judgment, declaring the dismissal illegal and ordering a retrial. The Supreme Court held that its ruling dismissing the appeal is not a final decision subject to review, as the procedural process remains open for the retrial.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Zakon o pravdnem postopku (ZPP) 367. člen; 367.b člen; 384. člen: A request for permission to file a review is only admissible against a final judgment of the second instance court or a ruling of the second instance court that concludes the proceedings; a ruling dismissing an appeal against a second instance decision regarding the annulment of a first instance judgment and remittal for retrial is not such a decision.

Keywords

AI generated
review permission request final judgment requirement second instance court annulment and remittal Zakon o pravdnem postopku procedural finality retrial proceedings

Cited Legislation

AI generated
367. člen Zakona o pravdnem postopku (ZPP)
367.b člen Zakona o pravdnem postopku (ZPP)
384. člen Zakona o pravdnem postopku (ZPP)
374. člen Zakona o pravdnem postopku (ZPP)
383. člen Zakona o pravdnem postopku (ZPP)

Cited Case Law

AI generated
Dsp 6/2024
Appeal dismissed; first instance court's rejection of termination legality precluded second instance review of Section 118 ZDR-1 termination. The Supreme Court held that the appeal was inadmissible because the first instance court had already ruled on the legality of the termination, thereby precluding any judicial dissolution under Section 118 of the Employment Relations Act. Consequently, the second instance court could not independently decide on the termination or the subsequent termination of the employment relationship, as the first instance court's decision on the legality of the termination precluded the possibility of a judicial dissolution under Section 118 of the Employment Relations Act. The appeal was therefore dismissed as the second instance court could not independently decide on the termination or the subsequent termination of the employment relationship, as the first instance court's decision on the legality of the termination precluded the possibility of a judicial dissolution under Section 118 of the Employment Relations Act. The appeal was therefore dismissed as the second instance court could not independently decide on the termination or the subsequent termination of the employment relationship, as the first instance court's decision on the legality of the termination precluded the possibility of a judicial dissolution under Section 118 of the Employment Relations Act.
AI generated
VDSS sodba Pdp 1213/2012
Appeal dismissed; employee dismissed for unpaid leave and failure to report address change causing employer loss.
VDSS Sodba Pdp 381/2023
Appeal dismissed; employee dismissed for fault upheld due to poor performance and lack of voluntary action.
VDSS sodba Pdp 1171/2010
Appeal dismissed; employee's unauthorized absence and unauthorized expense incurred justified dismissal.
VDSS Sodba in sklep Pdp 247/2025
Appeal court partially allows claim finding termination for cause illegal due to unjustified prior warning.
Sklep VIII Ips 236/2009
Court dismisses appeal claiming improper service of judgment due to postal return of document.

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 zavrže.

[JEDRO]

Iz 367., 367.b in 384. člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku (ZPP) izhaja, da je predlog za dopustitev revizije dovoljen zoper pravnomočno sodbo sodišča druge stopnje in zoper sklep sodišča druge stopnje, s katerim je bil postopek pravnomočno končan.

Sklep vrhovnega sodišča o zavrnitvi pritožbe zoper sklep sodišča druge stopnje o razveljavitvi sodbe sodišča prve stopnje in vrnitvi zadeve temu sodišču v novo sojenje ni odločitev, zoper katero bi bilo dopustno vložiti predlog za dopustitev revizije.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Sodišče prve stopnje je v celoti zavrnilo zahtevek, da se ugotovi, da sta prepoved opravljanja dela in redna odpoved pogodbe o zaposlitvi iz krivdnih razlogov nezakoniti, da tožnici delovno razmerje pri toženki ni prenehalo z iztekom odpovednega roka in ji še vedno traja z vsemi pravicami in obveznostmi, da je toženka dolžna tožnici vzpostaviti delovno razmerje, jo prijaviti v obvezna zavarovanja, ji za čas od nezakonitega prenehanja delovnega razmerja do ponovnega nastopa na delo plačati plačo z zakonskimi zamudnimi obrestmi ter še sorazmerni del regresa in odškodnino za nepremoženjsko škodo.

2. Sodišče druge stopnje je ugodilo pritožbi tožnice in sodbo sodišča prve stopnje delno spremenilo tako, da je ugotovilo nezakonitost odpovedi pogodbe o zaposlitvi in prepovedi opravljanja dela ter ugotovilo, da tožnici delovno razmerje z iztekom odpovednega roka ni prenehalo. Glede preostalih zahtevkov je sklenilo, da se sodba sodišča prve stopnje razveljavi in zadeva temu sodišču vrne v novo sojenje.

3. Toženkino pritožbo zoper navedeni sklep sodišča druge stopnje o razveljavitvi sodbe in vrnitvi zadeve sodišču prve stopnje v novo sojenje je Vrhovno sodišče zavrnilo s sklepom Dsp 6/2024 z dne 17. 9. 2024.

4. Zoper ta sklep vlaga toženka predlog za dopuščeno revizijo, v katerem izraža nestrinjanje z zavrnitvijo pritožbe in izpostavlja določena vprašanja.

5. Predlog ni dovoljen.

6. Iz 367., 367.b in 384. člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku (ZPP) izhaja, da je predlog za dopustitev revizije dovoljen zoper pravnomočno sodbo sodišča druge stopnje in zoper sklep sodišča druge stopnje, s katerim je bil postopek pravnomočno končan.

7. Sklep vrhovnega sodišča o zavrnitvi pritožbe zoper sklep sodišča druge stopnje o razveljavitvi sodbe sodišča prve stopnje in vrnitvi zadeve temu sodišču v novo sojenje ni odločitev, zoper katero bi bilo dopustno vložiti predlog za dopustitev revizije.

8. Zato je vrhovno sodišče predlog toženke za dopustitev revizije zoper navedeni sklep ob smiselni uporabi 374. člena ZPP v zvezi s 383. členom ZPP zavrglo.

9. Odločitev je sprejelo soglasno.