TFL Vsebine / Pravni letopis

Obligacijsko pravo je živo pravo. Še posebej to velja za odškodninsko pravo. To varuje premoženjske in nepremoženjske vrednote. Nepremoženjske vrednote in načini njihove kršitve se s časom in družbenimi razmerami spreminjajo. Pravno varstvo mora tem spremembam slediti in se jim prilagajati. Večinoma je to mogoče brez sprememb obligacijskih predpisov, le z njihovo razlago. Pomembno vlogo pri tem ima sodna praksa, ki ima prav tako zasluge za razvoj pojma nepremoženjske škode v zadnjem času. Prispevek se ukvarja z aktualnimi vprašanji nepremoženjske škode v novejši praksi Vrhovnega sodišča, predvsem ali Obligacijski zakonik pravno priznane oblike nepremoženjskih škod in upravičence do odškodnine določa taksativno ali primeroma, ali oškodovancu pripada odškodnina za nepremoženjsko škodo zaradi kršitve pogodbe. V zvezi z vprašanjem podedljivosti odškodnine za nepremoženjsko škodo opozori tudi na odločbo Ustavnega sodišča U-I-88/15-9, Up-684/12-32 z dne 15. 10. 2015, s katero je bilo ugotovljena neustavnost v Obligacijski zakonik prevzete določbe 201. člena prej veljavnega Zakona o obligacijskih razmerjih, ki je podedljivost odškodnine pogojevala s pravnomočnostjo sodbe.

Law of obligations is a live law. This is particularly true for tort law. It protects pecuniary and non-pecuniary values. Non-pecuniary values and the ways of breaching them are changing over time and due to social circumstances. Legal protection should track these changes and adapt to them. This is possible to a large extent without changing the obligation regulations but merely by using the right interpretation. Judicial practice plays an important role in it. Thanks to judicial practice, the term non-pecuniary damage has recently been introduced. The article deals with current issues of non-pecuniary damage in the recent practice of the Supreme Court and particularly with the question whether the Code of Obligations conceives legally recognized forms of non-pecuniary damage and the beneficiaries of compensation taxatively or personally, and with the question whether the victim is entitled to compensation for non-pecuniary damage due to the breach of contract. On the issue of heritability of compensation for non-pecuniary damage, it underlines the decision of the Constitutional Court UI-88 / 15-9, Up-684 / 12-32 dated 15. 10. 2015, which proved that provision of Article 201 of the formerly valid Law of Obligations was unconstitutional because it conditioned the heritability of compensation with the finality of judgement.

The Reflection and the Case Law of the Supreme Court on Certain Topical Issues of Tort Law in Respect of Non-Pecuniary Damage