Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
Sklep II DoR 64/2009 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2009:II.DOR.64.2009 Generato dall'IA

Appeal against non-property damage compensation rejected; review inadmissible under ZPP Art. 367a and 367c.

Numero d'incarto Sklep II DoR 64/2009
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 of Slovenia rejected the plaintiff's request to allow a review of the second-instance judgment regarding non-property damage compensation. The plaintiff argued the awarded sum was too low and deviated from established case law, citing specific prior decisions. The court dismissed the review request because the statutory conditions for admissibility under Article 367a of the Act on Civil Procedure were not met.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

Article 367a of the Act on Civil Procedure; Article 367c of the Act on Civil Procedure: A review request is inadmissible if the statutory conditions for its admissibility are not fulfilled, regardless of the applicant's claim that the lower court deviated from established case law.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
non-property damage compensation review admissibility Act on Civil Procedure case law deviation supreme court review civil procedure law damages assessment opposizione al precetto esecutivo

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
Article 367a of the Act on Civil Procedure
Article 367c of the Act on Civil Procedure

Giurisprudenza citata

Generato dall'IA
II Ips 366/2006
Supreme Court dismisses appeal on non-property damage compensation and interest calculation in personal injury case.
II Ips 645/2006
Supreme Court dismisses appeal on non-property damage compensation, upholding lower courts' fair compensation calculation.
II Ips 176/2009
Supreme Court dismisses appeal where damages must reflect objective conditions, not just individual subjective assessment of pain.
II Ips 491/2005
Supreme Court dismisses appeal on non-property damages, upholding interest calculation per Supreme Court opinion.
Generato dall'IA
VSRS Sklep II DoR 1/2025
Sodišče prve stopnje je tožbenemu zahtevku ugodilo in tožencu naložilo plačilo 42.867,98 EUR z zakonskimi zamudnimi obrestmi od 25.
VDS sodba Pdp 1376/97
Appeal dismissed; court awarded interest despite waiver as no explicit withdrawal was made.
VSK Sodba I Cp 644/2018
Court allows interest claim against state for illegal expropriation where statute of limitations cannot run before compensation is due.
VSRS Sklep VIII Ips 32/2019
Supreme Court dismisses appeal due to lack of reasoning on specific duties during rest days.
Sodba II Ips 163/2009
Court dismisses appeal against liability for slip and fall on unkept sidewalk due to negligence.

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

Odmera odškodnine za nepremoženjsko škodo – revizija se ne dopusti.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Predlog se zavrne.

OBRAZLOŽITEV:

1. Sodišče prve stopnje je razsodilo, da morata toženi stranki tožeči stranki plačati 1.057,07 EUR z zakonskimi zamudnimi obrestmi od 18. 2. 2003 do plačila in ji povrniti pravdne stroške. Višji tožbeni zahtevek je zavrnilo.

2. Sodišče druge stopnje je delno ugodilo pritožbi tožeče stranke in sodbo sodišča prve stopnje spremenilo tako, da je toženima strankama naložilo, da morata tožeči stranki plačati 2.657,07 EUR z zakonskimi zamudnimi obrestmi od 18. 2. 2003 do plačila in ji povrniti pravdne stroške. Višji tožbeni zahtevek je zavrnilo. Sicer je pritožbo zavrnilo in v nespremenjenem delu potrdilo sodbo sodišča prve stopnje.

3. Zoper sodbo sodišča druge stopnje je tožeča stranka vložila predlog za dopustitev revizije, v katerem navaja, da je prisojena odškodnina za vse oblike nepremoženjske škode prenizka in odstopa od sodne prakse Vrhovnega sodišča Republike Slovenije. V zvezi s tem izpostavlja nekatere odločbe Vrhovnega sodišča Republike Slovenije (II Ips 366/2006, II Ips 645/2006, II Ips 176/2009 in II Ips 491/2005).

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