Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSRS Sklep V DoR 3/2025 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2025:V.DOR.3.2025 AI generated

Supreme Court allows review regarding insurance agency authority and explicit statutory requirement for license renewal in insolvency.

Case Number VSRS Sklep V DoR 3/2025
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 the request for leave to appeal on specific legal questions. The applicant challenged an administrative decision denying a license renewal, arguing the insurance agency lacked authority under the Insurance Supervision Act and that the law requires explicit wording for license renewal rights. The court determined that the conditions for admitting the review were met based on the relevant provisions of the Act on Legal Proceedings and the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act. Consequently, the review was permitted only to the extent defined in the operative part of the decision.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 367.a paragraph 1 of the Act on Legal Proceedings; Article 22 paragraph 1 of the Insurance Supervision Act: The Supreme Court may admit a review if the lower court's material legal position is questionable regarding the agency's authority and the explicit statutory requirement for license renewal in insolvency proceedings.

Keywords

AI generated
insurance supervision authority insolvency proceedings license renewal requirement administrative dispute resolution leave to appeal conditions material legal position insurance company liquidation

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 367.a paragraph 1 of the Act on Legal Proceedings
Article 22 paragraph 1 of the Insurance Supervision Act
Article 324 paragraph 7 of the Act on Legal Proceedings
AI generated
VSRS Sklep V Up 3/2022
Supreme Court dismisses appeal as inadmissible because the disputed act was not part of the insolvency proceedings. The court clarifies that incorrect legal advice given by a lower court cannot grant a right to appeal that does not exist under the Insurance Act. The appellant is instead directed to file a request for leave to appeal (revizija).
Sklep G 30/2011
Supreme Court suspends license revocation enforcement but rejects delay of procedure start order.
UPRS Sodba II U 196/2018-15
Court dismisses appeal against insurance broker license revocation for operating without dual required permits.
UPRS Sodba II U 354/2020-11
Court dismisses claim that pension company employment counts as insurance experience for insurance broker license.
VSRS Sklep V Ips 1/2023
Supreme Court allows appeal against administrative court ruling denying main hearing due to unconstitutional insurance law provision.

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 vprašanj:

- Ali je pravilno materialnopravno stališče sodišča, da Agencija za zavarovalni nadzor ob izvrševanju pristojnosti skupščine zavarovalnice niti v ZZavar-1 niti v ZGD-1 nima pooblastila za sprejem odločitve, da zavarovalnica v prisilni likvidaciji deluje dalje?

- Ali je pravilno materialnopravno stališče sodišča, da bi moralo biti upravičenje tožnika oziroma zavarovalnice, da ponovno pridobi dovoljenje za opravljanje zavarovalnih poslov, v ZZavar-1 izrecno določeno?

[JEDRO]

Revizija se dopusti glede vprašanj:

- Ali je pravilno materialnopravno stališče sodišča, da Agencija za zavarovalni nadzor ob izvrševanju pristojnosti skupščine zavarovalnice niti v ZZavar-1 niti v ZGD-1 nima pooblastila za sprejem odločitve, da zavarovalnica v prisilni likvidaciji deluje dalje?

- Ali je pravilno materialnopravno stališče sodišča, da bi moralo biti upravičenje tožnika oziroma zavarovalnice, da ponovno pridobi dovoljenje za opravljanje zavarovalnih poslov, v ZZavar-1 izrecno določeno?

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Upravno sodišče je v delu, relevantnem za odločanje o predlogu za dopustitev revizije, zavrnilo tožbo tožeče stranke zoper odločbo Agencije za zavarovalni nadzor št. 40105-1/2024-16 z dne 15. 1. 2025, s katerim je slednja zavrnila zahtevo tožeče stranke za izdajo dovoljenja za opravljanje zavarovalnih poslov.

2. Zoper sodbo Upravnega sodišča vlaga tožeča stranka predlog za dopustitev revizije.

3. Vrhovno sodišče ugotavlja, da so izpolnjeni pogoji za dopustitev revizije iz prvega odstavka 367.a člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku v zvezi s prvim odstavkom 22. člena Zakona o upravnem sporu, glede vprašanj, opredeljenih v izreku sklepa. Revizijo je zato v tem obsegu dopustilo.

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