Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
Sklep II DoR 244/2009 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2009:II.DOR.244.2009 Generato dall'IA

Supreme Court dismisses appeal against damage assessment, citing established practice on revalorized payments.

Numero d'incarto Sklep II DoR 244/2009
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 applicant's request to permit a revision against the second-instance judgment. The applicant argued that the court failed to appoint a new medical expert and that the awarded damages were too low, ignoring the principle of contradictoriness. The court ruled that disagreeing with the assessment of the expert report's credibility does not constitute a significant legal issue and that the decision to use revalorized prior payments aligns with established Supreme Court practice.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

Zakon o pravdnem postopku (ZPP), 367.a odst. 1; 367.c odst. 2: Disagreement with the court's assessment of an expert report's credibility does not constitute a significant legal issue for revision, and the application of revalorized prior damages follows established judicial practice.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
revision of judgment expert report credibility revalorized damages significant legal issue contradictoriness principle judicial practice civil procedure law

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
367.a odst. 1 ZPP
367.c odst. 2 ZPP

Giurisprudenza citata

Generato dall'IA
II Ips 79/2007
Supreme Court partially allows appeal, replacing linear interest calculation with CPI-based valuation for past payments.
II Ips 435/2007
Court dismisses appeal, ruling valuation of prior damages is a court duty, not a party request.
II Ips 597/2008
Slovenian Supreme Court dismisses appeal on damages calculation and costs, upholding objective compensation principles.
II Ips 704/2008
Supreme Court dismisses appeal on non-pecuniary damages for mental suffering and mental pain due to reduced life activity.
II Ips 738/2007
Court rejects appeal upholding that partial damages payments must be indexed to preserve real value.
II Ips 130/2008
Appeal dismissed; objective compensation principle overrides subjective victim valuation in non-material damage awards.
II Ips 243/2009
Supreme Court of Slovenia rules that interest accrual starts when the claim reaches the insurer's local unit, not the central office.
II Ips 35/2009
Supreme Court dismisses appeal on procedural grounds and rejects claim for additional non-pecuniary damages in traffic accident case.
II Ips 1259/2008
Appeal dismissed; late advance payment for evidence sanction upheld; damages assessment confirmed.
II Ips 400/99
Poudarja, da prisojena odškodnina predstavlja odstop od sodne prakse Vrhovnega sodišča in navaja zadeve II Ips 400/99, II Ips 269/2008 in II Ips 65/2009, ki pa glede obsega škode niso primerljive z obravnavano zadevo.
II Ips 269/2008
Supreme Court dismisses appeal on damages for pre-existing conditions lacking natural causation by tortfeasor's act.
II Ips 65/2009
Supreme Court partially allows appeal on non-property damage compensation, adjusting mental suffering award based on objective criteria.

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

Nestrinjanje z oceno o prepričljivosti izvedenskega mnenja ne more predstavljati pomembnega pravnega vprašanja.

Odločitev sodišča, da se pri odmeri odškodnine upošteva revalorizirano že plačano odškodnino temelji na že izoblikovani, ustaljeni in enotni sodni praksi Vrhovnega sodišča.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Predlog se zavrne.

OBRAZLOŽITEV:

1. Tožnik je vložil predlog za dopustitev revizije zoper sodbo sodišča druge stopnje, s katero je bila zavrnjena njegova pritožba zoper sodbo sodišča prve stopnje o delni zavrnitvi njegovega zahtevka za plačilo odškodnine. V predlogu zatrjuje, da je podana kršitev načela kontradiktornosti, ker sodišče prve stopnje ni ugodilo predlogu za postavitev novega izvedenca medicinske stroke glede obsega škode, sodišče druge stopnje pa njegovi pritožbi v tem delu ni ugodilo. Meni, da sodišče pri odmeri odškodnine ne bi smelo upoštevati revalorizirane že plačane odškodnine in da mu je bila prisojena prenizka odškodnina. Poudarja, da prisojena odškodnina predstavlja odstop od sodne prakse Vrhovnega sodišča in navaja zadeve II Ips 400/99, II Ips 269/2008 in II Ips 65/2009, ki pa glede obsega škode niso primerljive z obravnavano zadevo.

2. Nestrinjanje z oceno sodišč prve in druge stopnje o prepričljivosti izvedenskega mnenja ne more predstavljati pravnega vprašanja, ki bi bilo pomembno za zagotovitev pravne varnosti, enotne uporabe prava ali za razvoj prava preko sodne prakse. Odločitev sodišča druge stopnje, da je treba pri odmeri odškodnine upoštevati revalorizirano že plačano odškodnino temelji na že izoblikovani, ustaljeni in enotni sodni praksi Vrhovnega sodišča RS (II Ips 79/2007 in II Ips 435/2007, II Ips 597/2008, II Ips 704/2008, II Ips 738/2007), prisojena odškodnina pa tudi ne odstopa od odškodnin, ki so bile prisojene v primerljivih primerih (II Ips 130/2008, II Ips 243/2009, II Ips 35/2009 in II Ips 1259/2008).

3. Ker pogoji za dopustitev revizije iz določbe prvega odstavka 367.a člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku (Ur. l. RS, št. 45/08, v nadaljevanju ZPP) niso podani, je Vrhovno sodišče predlog zavrnilo (drugi odstavek 367.c člena ZPP).