Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSC sklep I Ip 452/2009 ECLI:SI:VSCE:2009:I.IP.452.2009 AI generated

Enforcement suspended due to failure to notify creditor of new employer per ZIZ Art. 133.

Case Number VSC sklep I Ip 452/2009
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Court of Appeal allowed the appellant's protest and revoked the first-instance judgment that had suspended the enforcement proceedings. The creditor argued that the lower court incorrectly applied Article 88 of the Enforcement and Insolvency Act (ZIZ) regarding a failed seizure, while the debtor contended that the court failed to follow Article 133 ZIZ by not properly notifying the creditor about the termination of the employment relationship and the subsequent duty to request a new employer. The court ruled that the lower court violated Article 133 ZIZ because it did not inform the creditor of the employer's notice of termination and only requested basic identification details, thereby revoking the suspension order and remanding the case for further proceedings.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 133 of the Enforcement and Insolvency Act (ZIZ); If the creditor fails to notify the court of a new employer after being summoned, the court must suspend enforcement proceedings in accordance with Article 133 ZIZ.

Keywords

AI generated
enforcement suspension Employment Act new employer notification creditor summons proceedings remand

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 88 of the Enforcement and Insolvency Act (ZIZ)
Article 133 of the Enforcement and Insolvency Act (ZIZ)

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

Pritožbi se ugodi, sklep sodišča prve stopnje se razveljavi in se zadeva vrne v nadaljnji postopek.

O pritožbenih stroških bo odločilo sodišče prve stopnje.

[JEDRO]

Če upnik po pozivu sodišča v roku ne sporoči novega delodajalca, sodišče izvršbo ustavi.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Z izpodbijanim sklepom je sodišče izvršbo ustavilo.

Proti takšnemu sklepu se je pritožil upnik in izpodbija analogno uporabo čl. 88 ZIZ, saj ta določba obravnava neuspešen rubež. Kršen pa je bil čl. 133 ZIZ, po katerem mora delodajalec nemudoma obvestiti sodišče o prenehanju delovnega razmerja dolžnika, nato pa mora sodišče obvestiti upnika in ga pozvati k sporočilu o novem delodajalcu. Upnica ni bila seznanjena s sporočilom delodajalca. Predlaga razveljavitev sklepa.

Pritožba je utemeljena.

Na listni št. 7 je obvestilo delodajalca o prekinitvi delovnega razmerja dolžnika.

To obvestilo ni bilo poslano upniku s pozivom, da sporoči novega delodajalca. Na listni št. 8 je upnik pozvan le, da sporoči EMŠO in davčno številko.

Sodišče ni ravnalo po čl. 133 ZIZ, zato je bil izpodbijan sklep razveljavljen in zadeva vrnjena v nadaljnji postopek v skladu s čl. 133 ZIZ.

Glede na nadaljnji tek postopka bo o pritožbenih stroških odločilo sodišče prve stopnje.