Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Sklep II DoR 20/2009 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2009:II.DOR.20.2009 AI generated

Supreme Court dismisses leave for appeal request due to lack of relevant legal questions under ZPP Art. 367a.

Case Number Sklep II DoR 20/2009
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 applicant's request for leave to appeal, confirming the lower courts' rejection of a damages claim. The applicant argued for legal certainty and uniform application of law but failed to identify specific relevant legal issues in their petition. Consequently, the court ruled that the statutory requirements for granting leave to appeal were not met.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Zakon o pravdnem postopku (ZPP), 367. a člen; 367. c člen: A request for leave to appeal is inadmissible if the applicant fails to state relevant legal questions, thereby not fulfilling the statutory conditions for such a procedural step.

Keywords

AI generated
leave to appeal relevant legal questions ZPP Article 367a procedural admissibility Supreme Court review damages claim legal certainty

Cited Legislation

AI generated
367. a člen Zakona o pravdnem postopku (ZPP)
367. c člen Zakona o pravdnem postopku (ZPP)
AI generated
VDSS sodba Pdp 1153/2011
Court dismisses claim for return of overpaid wages based on forged diploma, ruling final judgments were valid. Claimant must bear appeal costs.
VSL sodba I Cp 1246/2013
Appeal dismissed; plaintiff failed to prove intentional damage required for direct claim against employees.
VSK sodba in sklep I Cp 1711/2005
Workplace asbestos exposure damages include mental suffering from reduced life activities even without physical injury.
VSL Sodba I Cp 339/2019
Court partially allows appeal, ordering defendant to pay damages and costs while rejecting claim for shared liability.
VSL Sodba II Cp 1738/2022
Worker's injury claim dismissed; employee bears primary safety responsibility per ZVZD-1.

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]

Ker tožeča stranka v predlogu za dopustitev revizije ni navedla relevantnih pravnih vprašanj, ni izpolnila pogojev iz 367. a člena ZPP.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Prvostopenjsko sodišče je zavrnilo tožbeni zahtevek tožeče stranke za plačilo zneska 31.964.61 EUR, kolikor je na podlagi izvensodne poravnave z dne 21. 3. 2003 predhodno izplačala tožencu kot odškodnino. Sodišče druge stopnje je tožničino pritožbo zavrnilo in potrdilo prvostopenjsko sodbo.

2. Zoper sodbo sodišča druge stopnje je tožeča stranka vložila predlog za dopustitev revizije zaradi zagotovitve pravne varnosti in enotne uporabe prava.

3. Ker tožeča stranka v predlogu za dopustitev revizije ni navedla relevantnih pravnih vprašanj, ni izpolnila pogojev iz 367. a člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku (ZPP). Vrhovno sodišče je zato predlog na podlagi drugega odstavka 367. c člena ZPP zavrnilo.