| | SLO | ENG | Cookies and privacy

Bigger font | Smaller font

Show document

Title:Podedljivost terjatve za povrnitev nepremoženjske škode
Authors:Stanec, Špela (Author)
Tratnik, Matjaž (Mentor) More about this mentor... New window
Files:.pdf MAG_Stanec_Spela_2018.pdf (562,00 KB)
 
Language:Slovenian
Work type:Master's thesis/paper (mb22)
Typology:2.09 - Master's Thesis
Organization:PF - Faculty of Law
Abstract:Slovenski pravni red nepremoženjsko škodo izrecno priznava kot eno od pravno priznanih škod, za katero se lahko zahteva denarna odškodnina. Namen denarne odškodnine za nepremoženjsko škodo v zakonu ni izrecno opredeljen, podana je zgolj zahteva, da odškodnina ne sme podpirati teženj, ki niso združljive z njeno naravo in namenom. Teorije in sodna praksa sta enotni, da je temeljna funkcija zadoščenje. Ravno zaradi namena odškodnine in strogo osebne narava nepremoženjske škode se je pojavilo vprašanje, ali in kdaj je lahko terjatev za povrnitev nepremoženjske škode predmet dedovanja. Razveljavljen 184. člen Obligacijskega zakonika, ki je urejal to vprašanje, je določal, da terjatev za povrnitev nepremoženjske škode preide na dediče samo, če je bila priznana s pravnomočno odločbo ali pisnim sporazumom. Ustavno sodišče je odločilo, da je takšna terjatev strogo osebne narave in da je zakonodajalčevi presoji prepuščeno, ali in kdaj ta pravica izgubi svojo osebno naravo ter postane podedljiva. Z ustavno pritožbo napadena zakonska določba je nasprotovala ustavnemu načelu enakosti pred zakonom iz 2. odstavka 14. člena Ustave, s tem ko je omogočala različno obravnavanje bistveno enakih dejanskih položajev. Stališča pravnih redov se glede določitve trenutka prehoda terjatve med seboj razlikujejo. Avstrijski Občni državni zakonik določa, da mora povzročitelj oškodovancu na njegovo zahtevo plačati primerno denarno odškonino za nepremoženjsko škodo. Sodišča so tako za podedljive priznavala zgolj zahtevke, ki so bili pred smrtjo oškodovanca priznani s poravnavo oziroma s pogodbo ali pa je bila vložena tožba. To stališče so sodišča spremenila in danes velja, da so zahtevki za nepremoženjsko škodo podedljivi ne glede na to, ali je oškodovanec zahteval plačilo. Enako stališče velja tudi v Nemčiji od reforme Državljanskega zakonika v letu 1990 naprej. Tudi nova ureditev na Hrvaškem je manj stroga od slovenske, saj je terjatev podedljiva od trenutka, ko je oškodovanec vložil pisni zahtevek ali tožbo. Spremembo zakona komentatorji utemeljujejo z zasledovanjem pravičnejše ureditve za dediče in s stališčem, da oškodovančeva zahteva za plačilo odškodnine za nepremoženjsko škodo izgubi svojo osebno naravo že s tem, ko jo le-ta na predpisan način poda.
Keywords:odškodnina, nepremoženjska škoda, zadoščenje, dedič, načelo enakosti, ustavna pritožba
Year of publishing:2018
Publisher:Š. Stanec]
Source:[Maribor
UDC:347.68(043.3)
COBISS_ID:5585451 Link is opened in a new window
NUK URN:URN:SI:UM:DK:UZELCLYZ
License:CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
This work is available under this license: Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives 4.0 International
Views:639
Downloads:164
Metadata:XML RDF-CHPDL DC-XML DC-RDF
Categories:PF
:
  
Average score:(0 votes)
Your score:Voting is allowed only for logged in users.
Share:AddThis
AddThis uses cookies that require your consent. Edit consent...

Hover the mouse pointer over a document title to show the abstract or click on the title to get all document metadata.

Secondary language

Language:English
Title:Survival of the deceased person´s claim for compensation of non-pecuniary damages
Abstract:Slovenian legal order explicitly recognizes non-pecuniary loss as one of the legally recognized damages for which monetary compensation may be claimed. The purpose of monetary compensation for non-pecuniary damage is not explicitly defined in the law. There is only the requirement that the compensation should not support tendencies that are incompatible with its nature and purpose. Theories and case law are unified that the basic function is satisfaction. It is precisely because of the purpose of compensation and the highly personal nature of non- pecuniary loss that the question arises as to whether and when a claim for non-pecuniary loss can be transferred to the heirs. Repealed Article 184 of the Code of Obligations, governing this issue, determined that the claim for the reimbursement of non-pecuniary loss was transferred to heirs only if it was recognized in a contract or already asserted before a court. The constitutional court ruled that such a claim is strictly personal nature and that it is left to the legislature's judgment if and when this right loses its personal nature and becomes inheritable. The constitutional complaint contested the statutory provision which contradicted the equality principle in the paragraph 2 of Article 14 of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia by allowing different treatment of fundamentally the same actual situations. The positions of the legal order differ from each other in terms of determining the moment of the change of claims. The Austrian General Civil Code states that the person responsible must pay an appropriate monetary compensation for non-pecuniary loss at the request of the person suffering damage. The courts thus recognized that claim is only transferable and only passes to the survivors when it had been recognised in a contract or already asserted before a court. This judgment has been changed by the courts and today, it is valid that claims for non-pecuniary loss are inheritable, regardless of victim’s demand for payment (they are transferred to the survivors). The same position also applies in Germany since the reform of the German Civil Code in 1990. The new arrangement in Croatia is also less strict than the Slovenian one, since the claim is inheritable from the moment when the injured party files a written claim or a lawsuit (injured party personally brings the action). The commentators reason the change of the law by pursuing equitable arrangements for heirs and with a point of view that the claimant's claim for non-pecuniary damage loses its personal nature as soon as it is given in a specified manner.
Keywords:compensation, non-pecuniary loss, satisfaction, heir, equality principle, constitutional complaint


Comments

Leave comment

You have to log in to leave a comment.

Comments (0)
0 - 0 / 0
 
There are no comments!

Back
Logos of partners University of Maribor University of Ljubljana University of Primorska University of Nova Gorica