Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Sklep II DoR 46/2010 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2010:II.DOR.46.2010 AI generated

Supreme Court allows partial review of appeal regarding statute of limitations for damages from illegal registry deletion.

Case Number Sklep II DoR 46/2010
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 Slovenia partially granted the applicant's request for permission to appeal, allowing a review of the merits regarding the statute of limitations. The first-instance court dismissed the claim for damages due to the expiration of the limitation period, while the second-instance court upheld this decision. The Supreme Court determined that the specific administrative act of deleting the applicant from the permanent residence register constitutes a gross infringement of personal integrity, thereby establishing the necessary conditions for a merits review under the relevant procedural law.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Zakon o postopku pri tožbah za odškodnino; When an administrative act constitutes a gross infringement of personal integrity, the statute of limitations for state liability damages may be interrupted, permitting a review of the merits if the specific administrative act is the basis for the claim.

Keywords

AI generated
statute of limitations state liability personal integrity administrative act registry deletion review of merits damages claim

Cited Legislation

AI generated
367.a paragraph 1 of the Act on Procedure in Damages Litigation
367.c paragraph 3 of the Act on Procedure in Damages Litigation
AI generated
VSM sklep I Cp 428/2008
Appeal dismissed; claim for non-property damage from registry deletion deemed time-barred. Court upheld first-instance judgment rejecting damages claim. Plaintiff argued constitutional decision triggered limitation period. Court found publication date started limitation clock. Claim rejected as time-barred under Civil Procedure Act. Plaintiff failed to prove non-property damage status. Court applied standard limitation rules strictly. Decision confirms procedural correctness of first instance. No procedural errors found on appeal. Claim dismissed due to expiration of limitation period. Plaintiff bears costs of appeal proceedings.
VSL sklep II Cp 518/99
Appeal allowed; limitation period starts when claimant knows all elements enabling the claim under ZOR. Limitation period starts when claimant knows all elements enabling the claim under ZOR.
VSL Sodba II Cp 1297/2017
Appeal dismissed; non-property damage claim statute of limitations began when active treatment ended and damage scope was known.
VSM sodba in sklep I Cp 14/2014
Appeal partially allowed; insurance claim statute of limitations based on policy terms, tort claim based on injury date.
VSL Sodba II Cp 819/2023
Appeal dismissed; uneven public pavement with drainage grates is not inherently dangerous or defective.

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

Predlogu se delno ugodi in se dopusti revizija o materialnopravni presoji vprašanja: „Ali in kako izdaja konkretnega upravnega akta vpliva na zastaranje odškodninskih zahtevkov zaradi nezakonitega izbrisa iz registra stalnega prebivalstva?“.

[JEDRO]

Dopusti se revizija o materialnopravni presoji vprašanja ali in kako izdaja konkretnega upravnega akta vpliva na zastaranje odškodninskih zahtevkov zaradi nezakonitega izbrisa iz registra stalnega prebivalstva.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Sodišče prve stopnje je tožbeni zahtevek na plačilo odškodnine zavrnilo iz razloga zastaranja. Tožniku je naložilo, da mora toženi stranki povrniti njene pravdne stroške.

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

3. Tožnik vlaga predlog za dopustitev revizije zoper sodbo sodišča druge stopnje in v njem kot pomembna izpostavlja naslednja pravna vprašanja:

Kdaj je mogoče govoriti o izpolnjenih vseh odškodninskih predpostavkah, na podlagi katerih pridobi tožnik pravico uveljavljati svoj zahtevek?

Kdaj je mogoče govoriti o teku zastaralnega roka pri odškodninski odgovornosti države glede izbrisanih?

Ali predstavlja izbris grob poseg v osebno integriteto oškodovanca?

Meni, da bi moralo sodišče pravico do uveljavljanja odškodnine vezati na konkretno odločbo Ministrstva za notranje zadeve (27.2.2004) in ne na ustavno odločbo.

4. Predlog je delno utemeljen.

5. Vrhovno sodišče je ugotovilo, da so glede pravnega vprašanja, opredeljenega v izreku tega sklepa, podani pogoji za dopustitev revizije iz prvega odstavka 367.a člena ZPP in je zato v tako začrtanem obsegu revizijo dopustilo (tretji odstavek 367. c člena istega zakona)