Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Sklep II DoR 445/2011 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2011:II.DOR.445.2011 AI generated

Supreme Court dismisses review application regarding noise pollution compensation amount under ZPP Art. 367a.

Case Number Sklep II DoR 445/2011
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court of Slovenia dismissed the defendant's request for permission to appeal the first-instance judgment regarding noise pollution compensation. The defendant argued the awarded sum was excessive due to noise protection measures and a shorter exposure period, citing specific precedents. The court rejected these claims as they contradicted the first-instance findings and established case law, thus failing to meet the statutory conditions for a review under Article 367a of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 367a of the Code of Civil Procedure; A request for permission to appeal is inadmissible when the applicant's arguments regarding the amount of compensation contradict established case law and factual findings of the lower court.

Keywords

AI generated
noise pollution compensation Code of Civil Procedure permission to appeal established case law civil liability environmental damage review application

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 367a of the Code of Civil Procedure
Article 367c, paragraph 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure

Cited Case Law

AI generated
II Ips 409/2009
Supreme Court partially allows appeal on noise damage compensation but rejects procedural violation claims regarding expert witnesses.
II Ips 301/2010
Supreme Court partially allows appeal, reducing noise nuisance damages from 5,800 to 4,500 euros based on property distance and employment absence.
II Ips 303/2010
Supreme Court partially allows appeal, reducing damages and legal costs based on changed success rates.
AI generated
Sklep II DoR 480/2011
Supreme Court dismisses review application regarding excessive non-material damages for noise pollution. The court finds no deviation from established case law. The review request is inadmissible under the Civil Procedure Act. The review application is rejected due to lack of grounds for deviation from precedent. The court confirms the first-instance damages are consistent with established practice. The review request fails because the claimed deviation from Supreme Court practice is unfounded. The review application is dismissed as the conditions for review under the Civil Procedure Act are not met. The court rejects the review request because the claimed deviation from established case law is not substantiated. The review application is dismissed as the conditions for review under the Civil Procedure Act are not met.
Sklep II DoR 596/2010
Supreme Court rejects appeal request as prior rulings preclude different outcomes on limitation and damages.
Sklep II DoR 514/2011
Supreme Court rejects review application as compensation aligns with established judicial practice regarding noise damage.
Sklep II DoR 194/2010
Supreme Court allows appeal on noise damage compensation amount due to inconsistent lower court practice.
Sklep II DoR 203/2010
Supreme Court allows appeal on damages amount due to inconsistent lower court practice regarding noise pollution compensation.

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 zavrne.

[JEDRO]

Presoja pogojev za dopustitev revizije glede višine odškodnine.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Sodišče prve stopnje je delno ugodilo tožbenemu zahtevku tožnikov za plačilo odškodnine zaradi kršitve pravice do zdravega življenjskega okolja (hrup zaradi tranzitnega prometa). Prvemu tožniku je prisodilo odškodnino v znesku 2.000,00 EUR, drugi tožnici pa v višini 2.300,00 EUR. V presežku je tožbeni zahtevek zavrnilo.

2. Sodišče druge stopnje je delno ugodilo pritožbi tožene stranke samo glede pravdnih stroškov, glede višine odškodnine pa je pritožbo zavrnilo in v nespremenjenem delu potrdilo prvostopenjsko sodbo.

3. Tožena stranka je predlagala dopustitev revizije glede druge tožnice in sicer glede višine odškodnine. Izpodbija znesek 2.100,00 EUR. V predlogu navaja, da je odškodnina previsoka, ker je bila druga tožnica manj obremenjena s hrupom in ker gre le za obdobje enaintrideset mesecev, poleg tega pa je bila pred hišo izvedena protihrupna zaščita. Zatrjuje odstop od sodne prakse višjega sodišča in Vrhovnega sodišča ter navaja zadeve II Ips 409/2009, II Ips 301/2010 in II Ips 303/2010.

4. Predlog ni utemeljen.

5. Vrhovno sodišče ugotavlja, da je trditev o protihrupni zaščiti v nasprotju z ugotovitvami prvostopenjske sodbe, glede na vse ugotovljene relevantne okoliščine pa po primerjavi pravnomočno prisojene odškodnine drugi tožnici z odškodninami iz ustaljene sodne prakse Vrhovnega sodišča zaključuje, da trditve o odstopu od sodne prakse niso utemeljene. Pogoji iz 367.a člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku (v nadaljevanju ZPP) tako niso podani. Zato je bilo treba na podlagi drugega odstavka 367.c člena ZPP predlog za dopustitev revizije zavrniti.