Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSRS Sklep II Ips 153/2018 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2018:II.IPS.153.2018 AI generated

Appeal dismissed because direct appeal to Supreme Court is barred by procedural law despite Mental Health Act provision.

Case Number VSRS Sklep II Ips 153/2018
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 rejected the appeal filed by a patient against a second-instance court decision regarding involuntary psychiatric treatment. Although the Mental Health Act permits appeals against second-instance rulings in such cases, the transitional provisions of the Civil Procedure Act require that any such appeal follow the standard civil procedure rules rather than allowing a direct appeal to the Supreme Court. Consequently, the court held that the direct appeal was procedurally inadmissible and dismissed the case under Article 377 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 4 paragraph 50 of the Mental Health Act; Article 124 of the Transitional and Final Provisions of the Act on Amendments and Supplements to the Civil Procedure Act: While the Mental Health Act allows appeals against second-instance decisions in involuntary treatment cases, the Civil Procedure Act mandates that such appeals proceed under standard civil procedure rules, thereby precluding a direct appeal to the Supreme Court.

Keywords

AI generated
involuntary psychiatric treatment direct appeal inadmissibility Civil Procedure Act Mental Health Act procedural hierarchy

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 4 paragraph 50 of the Mental Health Act
Article 124 of the Transitional and Final Provisions of the Act on Amendments and Supplements to the Civil Procedure Act
Article 377 of the Civil Procedure Act
Article 165 paragraph 1 of the Civil Procedure Act
Article 154 paragraph 1 of the Mental Health Act
AI generated
VSL Sklep I Cp 853/2018
Appeal dismissed; compulsory psychiatric treatment without consent requires strict legal conditions under ZDZdr.
VSL Sklep II Cp 417/2018
Appeal dismissed; involuntary psychiatric treatment without consent upheld under urgent care provisions.
VSL Sklep II Cp 1291/2020
Appeal allowed; court found first instance decision arbitrary due to lack of specific factual basis for involuntary detention.
VSL Sklep I Cp 8/2023
Appeal dismissed; involuntary psychiatric detention upheld due to severe property damage and life threat from psychosis.
VSL Sklep II Cp 1014/2024
Appeal allowed; court quashes decision for failing to conduct independent fact-finding and violating due process rights.

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 zavrže.

[JEDRO]

Zakon o duševnem zdravju v 4. odstavku 50. člena določa, da je zoper odločitev sodišča druge stopnje v postopku sprejema na zdravljenje brez privolitve dovoljena revizija. V 124. členu prehodnih in končnih določb Zakona o spremembah in dopolnitvah Zakona o pravdnem postopku (ZPP-E) pa je navedeno: Če drug zakon določa, da je revizija v nepravdnem postopku dovoljena, se ta dopusti pod pogoji iz 367a. člena ZPP in po postopku po ZPP. To pomeni, da direktna revizija ni dovoljena, zato jo je Vrhovno sodišče zavrglo na podlagi 377. člena ZPP.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Sodišče prve stopnje je odločilo, da se nasprotna udeleženka zadrži na zdravljenju na oddelku pod posebnim nadzorom Psihiatrične bolnice Idrija do 27. 6. 2018. Sodišče druge stopnje je pritožbo nasprotne udeleženke zavrnilo in potrdilo sklep sodišča prve stopnje.

2. Nasprotna udeleženka je zoper odločitev sodišča druge stopnje vložila revizijo.

3. Revizija ni dovoljena.

4. Zakon o duševnem zdravju (v nadaljevanju ZDZdr) v 4. odstavku 50. člena določa, da je zoper odločitev sodišča druge stopnje v postopku sprejema na zdravljenje brez privolitve dovoljena revizija. V 124. členu prehodnih in končnih določb Zakona o spremembah in dopolnitvah Zakona o pravdnem postopku (v nadaljevanju ZPP-E) pa je navedeno: Če drug zakon določa, da je revizija v nepravdnem postopku dovoljena, se ta dopusti pod pogoji iz 367a. člena ZPP in po postopku po ZPP. To pomeni, da direktna revizija ni dovoljena, zato jo je Vrhovno sodišče zavrglo na podlagi 377. člena ZPP.

5. Odločitev, da nasprotna udeleženka sama krije svoje stroške revizijskega postopka temelji na prvem odstavku 165. člena ZPP in prvem odstavku 154. člena ZPP in je zajeta z izrekom o zavrženju revizije.