Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSL sklep I Cpg 971/2015 ECLI:SI:VSLJ:2015:I.CPG.971.2015 AI generated

Appeal dismissed because the lawyer's power of attorney lacked the required signature, rendering the appeal incomplete under ZPP. The court rejected the appeal as incomplete due to the missing signature on the power of attorney, which the opposing party had warned about. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the appellant bears the costs. The court ruled that an appeal without a lawyer's signature is procedurally defective and cannot be cured by the court. The decision reinforces the strict requirement for formal completeness in legal submissions. Keywords include: incomplete appeal; power of attorney; signature requirement; procedural defect; costs allocation; ZPP; appeal dismissal.

Case Number VSL sklep I Cpg 971/2015
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The appellate court dismissed the appeal because the lawyer's power of attorney lacked the necessary signature, rendering the submission procedurally incomplete. The appellant had instructed a lawyer to file the appeal, but the lawyer failed to sign the document despite prior warnings from the opposing party. The court applied the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Act to reject the appeal and assigned the costs to the appellant.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

ZPP 335. člen; ZPP 351. člen: An appeal submitted without the signature of the authorized lawyer is deemed incomplete and must be rejected by the appellate court, as such defects cannot be remedied through court-initiated supplementation.

Keywords

AI generated
incomplete appeal power of attorney signature requirement procedural defect costs allocation ZPP appeal dismissal

Cited Legislation

AI generated
335. člen Zakona o pravdnem postopku
351. člen Zakona o pravdnem postopku
155. člen Zakona o pravdnem postopku
108. člen Zakona o pravdnem postopku
336. člen Zakona o pravdnem postopku

Cited Case Law

AI generated
Ustavnodajna odločba Ustavnega sodišča RS z opr. št. U-I-8/10 z dne 3. 6. 2010
AI generated
VSL sodba I Cpg 88/2003
Appeal dismissed; voluntary insurance cannot cover rights already provided by mandatory health insurance.
VSK sodba I Cp 604/2004
Employer liable for unsafe work; appeal partially allowed to increase pain and suffering compensation from 60k to 120k SIT.
VSM Sklep I Cp 171/2023
Appeal allowed; first instance court erred by ignoring timely objection to termination of treatment.
VSL sodba I Cpg 767/2015
Tenant dismissed for failing to return leased facade undamaged per Civil Code Article 604.
Sodba II Ips 258/2002
Supreme Court dismisses appeal in traffic accident case where defendant failed to prove non-involvement.

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

I. Pritožba se zavrže.

II. Tožeča stranka sama krije svoje stroške pritožbenega postopka.

[JEDRO]

V konkretnem primeru je toženec vložil pritožbo po pooblaščenki, ki pa je le-ta ni podpisala, zato jo je pritožbeno sodišče kot nepopolno zavrglo.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Z izpodbijano sodbo je sodišče prve stopnje delno ugodilo tožbenemu zahtevku in tožencu naložilo, da mora tožnici plačati 2.806,81 EUR z zakonskimi zamudnimi obrestmi od 17. 12. 2010 dalje do plačila. V presežku je tožbeni zahtevek zavrnilo in tožencu naložilo, da tožnici povrne 310,30 EUR pravdnih stroškov.

2. Toženec je zoper sodbo sodišča prve stopnje vložil pritožbo, tožnica pa je nanjo odgovorila.

3. Pritožba ni popolna.

4. V skladu s 335. členom Zakona o pravdnem postopku (v nadaljevanju ZPP) pritožba ni popolna, če ne vsebuje pritožnikovega podpisa. Tožena stranka je bila v pravnem pouku izpodbijane sodbe posebej opozorjena na obvezne sestavine pritožbe in posledice vložitve nepopolne pritožbe. V konkretnem primeru je toženec po pooblaščenki, odvetnici ..., vložil pritožbo, ki pa je njegova pooblaščenka ni podpisala. Zato je pritožba nepopolna. Ker se v postopku s pritožbo ne uporabljajo določbe 108. člena ZPP o vračanju nepopolnih vlog v dopolnitev (336. člen ZPP), je pritožbeno sodišče nepopolno pritožbo zavrglo (prvi odstavek 351. člena ZPP). Ustavnost takšne zakonodajne ureditve je bila potrjena z odločbo Ustavnega sodišča RS z opr. št. U-I-8/10 z dne 3. 6. 2010.

5. Toženec pritožbenih stroškov ni priglasil. Tožnica pa do povrnitve priglašenih stroškov odgovora na pritožbo ni upravičena, saj stroškov odgovora na nepopolno pritožbo ni mogoče šteti za potrebne pravdne stroške (prvi odstavek 155. člena ZPP).