Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Sklep II DoR 143/2009 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2009:II.DOR.143.2009 AI generated

Supreme Court rejects appeal permission request due to failure to meet statutory review conditions.

Case Number Sklep II DoR 143/2009
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 rejected the applicant's request to permit an appeal against a second-instance judgment awarding 8,000 EUR in non-pecuniary damages. The applicant argued that the awarded amount deviated from established case law and cited specific court decisions to support this claim. The court denied the request because the applicant failed to satisfy the substantive conditions required for granting permission to appeal under the relevant procedural law.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 367a paragraph 1 of the Act on Civil Procedure; Article 367c of the Act on Civil Procedure: A request to permit an appeal is rejected if the applicant fails to demonstrate that the lower court's decision violates the law or significantly deviates from established case law.

Keywords

AI generated
permission to appeal non-pecuniary damages deviation from case law civil procedure law supreme court review

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 367a paragraph 1 of the Act on Civil Procedure
Article 367c of the Act on Civil Procedure
AI generated
VSL Sodba I Cp 2041/2024
Appeal dismissed; defamation claim upheld against public figure for grossly insulting remarks without factual basis.
Sodba II Ips 302/2010
Supreme Court partially allowed appeal reducing noise nuisance damages based on plaintiff employment and absence status.
VSL Sodba III Cp 736/2020
Appeal dismissed; damages liability arises at injury, not repair payment, and VAT is included in service costs.
VSL sodba II Cp 879/2012
Enrichment claim dismissed; investment value must equal property increase, not just investment cost.
Sodba II Ips 772/2008
Court dismisses claim that unreasonable delay caused financial loss from interest on debt settlement.

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]

Vrhovno sodišče je zavrnilo predlog za dopustitev revizije, v kateri je tožena stranka uveljavljala odstop od sodne prakse zaradi previsoko odmerjene odškodnine za nepremoženjsko škodo.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Sodišče prve stopnje je toženi stranki naložilo, da mora tožeči stranki plačati 7.000,00 EUR odškodnine z zakonskimi zamudnimi obrestmi od 13. 12. 2006 do plačila. Višji tožbeni zahtevek je zavrnilo. Odločilo je še o pravdnih stroških.

2. Sodišče druge stopnje je delno ugodilo pritožbi tožeče stranke in sodbo sodišča prve stopnje v zavrnilnem delu spremenilo tako, da je toženi stranki naložilo, da mora tožeči stranki plačati 8.000,00 EUR z zakonskimi zamudnimi obrestmi od 13. 12. 2006 do plačila. Sicer je pritožbo zavrnilo in v nespremenjenem delu potrdilo sodbo sodišča prve stopnje.

3. Zoper sodbo sodišča druge stopnje je tožena stranka na podlagi 367. b člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku (ZPP) vložila predlog za dopustitev revizije, v katerem navaja, da prisojena odškodnina v konkretnem primeru odstopa od odškodnin v primerljivih zadevah, pri čemer se sklicuje na nekatere odločbe Vrhovnega sodišča Republike Slovenije in Višjega sodišča v Mariboru.

4. Ker niso podani pogoji za dopustitev revizije iz prvega odstavka 367. a člena ZPP, je Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije predlog zavrnilo (367. c člen ZPP).