Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSRS Sklep II DoR 262/2020 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2020:II.DOR.262.2020 AI generated

Supreme Court allows review regarding constitutional living space rights and damage causation in housing dispute.

Case Number VSRS Sklep II DoR 262/2020
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 granted the applicant's request for leave to appeal regarding two specific legal questions. The applicant argued that her constitutional right to personal dignity was violated by having only 3-4 square meters of living space, which she claimed was insufficient despite other compensating circumstances. The lower courts had previously awarded damages for non-material harm based on the plaintiff's subjective assertions, leading to the current dispute over the legal basis for such damages.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 21 of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia; Article 367a of the Civil Procedure Act: The Supreme Court may permit a review when the case involves a question of significant importance for the protection of constitutional rights, the uniform application of law, or the development of legal doctrine.

Keywords

AI generated
constitutional living space rights non-material damage causation subjective assertions of harm leave to appeal conditions personal dignity violation housing adequacy standards civil procedure review

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 21 of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia
Article 367a of the Civil Procedure Act
Article 367c of the Civil Procedure Act
Article 324 of the Civil Procedure Act
AI generated
VSL Sodba I Cpg 646/2019
Appeal dismissed; contractor's claim for extra work payment rejected due to public procurement rules and lack of evidence.
VDSS sodba Pdp 1527/2014
Appeal dismissed; employer proved no age discrimination despite plaintiff's claim of unequal treatment in diplomatic job selection.
Sodba II Ips 526/2007
Supreme Court dismisses appeal against state compensation claim in denationalization proceedings due to procedural timing. The court ruled that the administrative body could not award bonds without a specific request made in 1999. Consequently, the claim was rejected as the delay was not necessarily unlawful. The decision emphasizes that procedural delays do not automatically constitute legal violations. The court found the lower courts' reasoning logical and sufficient. Thus, the appeal was rejected without further review.
VSRS Sklep II DoR 550/2019
Supreme Court allows review regarding contract termination under Obligations Act Article 105.
VSM Sodba I Cp 494/2018
Appeal dismissed; court upheld discrimination claim where dentist refused HIV patient treatment causing mental distress.

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 bila tožeči stranki kršena osebnostna pravica iz 21. člena Ustave RS, če je imela na razpolago 3-4 m2 bivalnega prostora, če je to kompenzirala z drugimi okoliščinami?

- Ali sta sodišči prve in druge stopnje materialnopravno pravilno presodili nastanek škode v obravnavanem primeru?

[JEDRO]

Revizija se dopusti glede vprašanj:

- ali je bila tožeči stranki kršena osebnostna pravica iz 21. člena Ustave RS, če je imela na razpolago 3-4 m2 bivalnega prostora, če je to kompenzirala z drugimi okoliščinami,

- ali sta sodišči prve in druge stopnje materialnopravno pravilno presodili nastanek škode v obravnavanem primeru.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Sodišče prve stopnje je odločilo, da mora toženka tožniku zaradi neustreznih bivalnih razmer v priporu plačati 700,00 EUR odškodnine z zakonskimi zamudnimi obrestmi od 27. 6. 2018 dalje. Višji zahtevek je zavrnilo in tožniku naložilo v plačilo 99,92 EUR pravdnih stroškov toženke.

2. Sodišče druge stopnje je pritožbo toženke zavrnilo in potrdilo izpodbijano sodbo.

3. Zoper odločitev sodišča druge stopnje toženka vlaga predlog za dopustitev revizije glede vprašanj:

- Ali je bila tožeči stranki kršena osebnostna pravica iz 21. člena Ustave RS, če je imela na razpolago 3-4 m2 bivalnega prostora, če je to kompenzirala z drugimi okoliščinami?

- Ali je sodišče pravilno uporabilo materialno pravo, ko je obstoj pravno priznane škode (nepremoženjske škode) ugotovilo na podlagi subjektivnih navajanj tožnika?

4. Predlog je utemeljen.

5. Vrhovno sodišče dopusti revizijo, če je od njegove odločitve mogoče pričakovati odločitev o pravnem vprašanju, pomembnem za zagotovitev pravne varnosti, enotne uporabe prava ali za razvoj prava preko sodne prakse (prvi odstavek 367. a člena ZPP). Vrhovno sodišče je ocenilo, da so pogoji iz 367. a člena ZPP za dopustitev revizije izpolnjeni glede vprašanj, ki sta razvidni iz izreka tega sklepa, in je v tem delu revizijo dopustilo (tretji odstavek 367. c člena ZPP).

6. Vrhovno sodišče je odločalo v senatu, navedenim v uvodu odločbe. Odločitev je sprejelo soglasno (sedmi odstavek 324. člena ZPP).