Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
Sklep II DoR 126/2009 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2010:II.DOR.126.2009 Generato dall'IA

Supreme Court dismisses appeal permission request as first-instance judgment was not fully overturned.

Numero d'incarto Sklep II DoR 126/2009
Autorità giudiziaria
Giurisdizione Slovenia (SI)
Data della decisione
Esito del giudizio Respinto (Dismissed)
Apri la fonte ufficiale Versione Markdown leggibile dalle macchine (.md)

Sintesi Legislator

Generato dall'IA

The Supreme Court rejected the first defendant's request for permission to appeal, ruling that the conditions under Article 367a of the Code of Civil Procedure were not met. Although the lower court partially revised the compensation amount and upheld the liability of both defendants, it did not overturn the entire first-instance judgment. Consequently, the court determined that the appeal permission request was unfounded and dismissed it.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

Article 367a of the Code of Civil Procedure; Article 367c of the Code of Civil Procedure: A request for permission to appeal is inadmissible if the first-instance judgment was not fully overturned, as the appeal must be based on a complete reversal of the lower court's decision.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
permission to appeal Code of Civil Procedure partial judgment reversal supreme court review appeal admissibility indennità per lavoro ridotto indennità per perdita guadagno diminuzione di stipendio

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
Article 367a of the Code of Civil Procedure
Article 367c of the Code of Civil Procedure
Generato dall'IA
Sklep II DoR 311/2011
Supreme Court allows review on tort liability, causation, and employer liability for social worker's injury.
VSRS Sklep II Ips 125/2007
Appeal dismissed because the appellant was deleted from the court register due to bankruptcy closure, losing standing.
VSRS Sklep VIII DoR 171/2019-9, VIII DoR 174/2019
Supreme Court allows appeal on workplace harassment assessment and damages calculation under Slovenian law.
VDSS sodba Pdp 352/2012
Appeal dismissed; procedural error regarding amendment of claim did not invalidate first-instance judgment on work injury liability.
Sklep VIII DoR 72/2013
Supreme Court allows review on whether statute of limitations is interrupted by timely filing at an incompetent court.

Ti chiedi come si applica questa sentenza alla tua fattispecie?

Analizza questa decisione insieme alla legislazione federale e cantonale, ai commentari e alla giurisprudenza successiva in Legislator AI.

Apri in Legislator →

Testo completo

Predlog za dopustitev revizije se zavrne.

[JEDRO]

Ker pogoji za dopustitev revizije iz prvega odstavka 367.a člena ZPP niso podani, je Vrhovno sodišče neutemeljen predlog prve toženke zavrnilo.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Sodišče druge stopnje je delno ugodilo pritožbama obeh toženk in znižalo tožnici prisojeno odškodnino od 54.000 EUR na 29.000 EUR s pripadki, v ostalem pa je njuni pritožbi in v celoti tožničino pritožbo zavrnilo ter potrdilo še izpodbijane dele prvostopenjske sodbe. Strinjalo se je z razlogi prvostopenjskega sodišča o obstoju temelja odškodninske obveznosti druge toženke (krivdna odgovornost delodajalca za škodo, ki jo delavec utrpi na delu ali v zvezi z delom – socialno delavko je napadla stranka) in prve toženke (odgovornost ustanovitelja za obveznosti socialnega zavoda), drugače pa je presodilo le, koliko znaša pravična denarna odškodnina.

2. Prva toženka v pravočasnem predlogu za dopustitev revizije uveljavlja, da sta nižji sodišči o vseh pravnih vprašanjih materialnopravno napačno odločili in to podrobneje utemeljuje s povzemanjem dejanskega stanja in s sklicevanjem na zatrjevano drugačne odločitve v podobnih zadevah.

3. Vrhovno sodišče ugotavlja, da pogoji za dopustitev revizije iz prvega odstavka 367.a člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku (ZPP) niso popolni, zato je neutemeljen predlog prve toženke na podlagi drugega odstavka 367.c člena ZPP zavrnilo.