Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Sklep VIII DoR 96/2009 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2010:VIII.DOR.96.2009 AI generated

Supreme Court allows review to establish equal pension insurance rights for firefighters in private companies.

Case Number Sklep VIII DoR 96/2009
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 to permit a review of the final judgment. The applicant, a firefighter employed by a private company, argued that Article 14a(9) of the Fire Protection Act requires equal pension insurance treatment compared to public sector firefighters. The court determined that this issue is legally significant for numerous employees and necessitates a unified interpretation of the law.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 14a(9) of the Fire Protection Act; Article 376a of the Pension Insurance Act: The Supreme Court may permit a review when a legal question is significant for many employees and requires a decision to ensure legal certainty and uniform application of the law.

Keywords

AI generated
firefighter pension rights private company employment pension insurance equality review of final judgment uniform application of law ZGas Article 14a ZPP Article 376a

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 14a(9) of the Fire Protection Act (ZGas)
Article 376a of the Pension Insurance Act (ZPP)
AI generated
Sodba VIII Ips 100/2010
Supreme Court allows firefighter's pension claim, overturning lower court's dismissal of mandatory additional insurance rights.
VDSS sodba in sklep Pdp 327/2009
Appeal dismissed; employee not legitimized as laborer due to failure to transfer from JLA to Territorial Defense.
VDSS sodba Psp 185/2012
Appeal dismissed; plaintiff failed to prove half-time work status required for partial pension rights.
Sodba I Ips 124/2002
Supreme Court dismisses prosecutor's request, ruling alternative sentence execution must be decided before penalty starts. The court held that post-sentence changes are legally impossible. The court rejected the prosecutor's request for legal protection, ruling that alternative sentence execution must be decided before the penalty begins. The court held that post-sentence changes are legally impossible. The court rejected the prosecutor's request for legal protection, ruling that alternative sentence execution must be decided before the penalty begins. The court held that post-sentence changes are legally impossible.
VSL sklep IV Cp 2710/2016
Appeal dismissed; applicant failed to prove financial need and inability to work for temporary alimony.

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

Predlogu se ugodi in se revizija dopusti glede vprašanja, ali je delodajalec poklicnega gasilca v gospodarski družbi dolžan prijaviti v obvezno dodatno pokojninsko zavarovanje.

[JEDRO]

Vprašanje obveznega dodatnega pokojninskega zavarovanja poklicnih gasilcev je pomembno pravno vprašanje, ki se nanaša na večje število delavcev, ki poklicno opravljajo gasilsko službo. Prav tako je pravno pomembno, da so glede pravic iz obveznega dodatnega pokojninskega zavarovanja poklicni gasilci, zaposleni v gospodarskih družbah, izenačeni s poklicnimi gasilci v ustreznih javnih zavodih.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Sodišče prve stopnje je ugodilo tožbenemu zahtevku in toženi stranki naložilo, da tožnika, ki je poklicni gasilec, prijavi v obvezno dodatno pokojninsko zavarovanje za čas od 29. 10. 2005 dalje in zanj plača ustrezne prispevke. Sodišče druge stopnje je sodbo sodišča prve stopnje spremenilo in tožbeni zahtevek kot neutemeljen zavrnilo.

2. Tožnik predlaga dopustitev revizije zoper pravnomočno sodbo sodišča druge stopnje. Navaja, da deveti odstavek 14. a člena Zakona o gasilstvu (ZGas) določa, da imajo poklicni gasilci pravico do priznanja zavarovalne dobe s povečanjem, da gre za vprašanja izenačitve poklicnih gasilcev v javnih zavodih in gospodarskih družbah in glede na to za pomembno vprašanje, o katerem Vrhovno sodišče še ni odločalo.

3. Predlog je utemeljen.

4. Vprašanje obveznega dodatnega pokojninskega zavarovanja poklicnih gasilcev je pomembno pravno vprašanje, ki se nanaša na večje število delavcev, ki poklicno opravljajo gasilsko službo. Prav tako je pravno pomembno, da so glede pravic iz obveznega dodatnega pokojninskega zavarovanja poklicni gasilci, zaposleni v gospodarskih družbah, izenačeni s poklicnimi gasilci v ustreznih javnih zavodih. Zato je v skladu s 376. a členom ZPP od odločitve VSRS mogoče pričakovati odločitev o pravnem vprašanju, ki je pomembno za zagotovitev pravne varnosti in enotne uporabe prava.