Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSM sklep Cpg 338/93 ECLI:SI:VSMB:1993:CPG.338.93 AI generated

Appeal dismissed because objection filed after deadline; court ruled procedural defect bars review.

Case Number VSM sklep Cpg 338/93
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 appellant's appeal, confirming the first-instance court's decision to reject the objection as untimely. The appellant filed the objection after the statutory deadline expired, and the first-instance court correctly applied Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act in conjunction with Article 14 of the Enforcement Act. The court emphasized that since the objection was late, the substantive validity of the claim must be determined in a separate legal proceeding initiated on the court's own motion.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 14 of the Enforcement Act: An objection filed after the expiration of the statutory appeal period is inadmissible, and the court must reject it without examining the substantive merits of the claim.

Keywords

AI generated
statutory appeal period inadmissible objection enforcement proceedings procedural defect dismissal of appeal

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act
Article 14 of the Enforcement Act
AI generated
VSC sklep Cpg 390/2002
Appeal allowed: First instance court erred by treating partial tax payment as withdrawal without specific warning.
VDSS Sklep Psp 121/2018
Appeal dismissed for lack of signature, violating mandatory procedural requirements under ZPP Article 335.4.3. and 366.
VSL Sklep IV Cp 464/2022
Appeal dismissed because a procedurally incompetent party cannot file appeals without a temporary representative.
VSM sklep Cpg 269/94
Appeal dismissed; mandatory withdrawal sanction under ZPP Art. 465 applies despite request for adjournment.
VSC Sklep II Ip 180/2020
Appeal allowed; electronic signature via e-Enforcement portal validly constitutes a valid signature under enforcement law.

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

Pritožba se zavrne kot neutemeljena in se potrdi sklep sodišča prve stopnje.

[JEDRO]

Upnik je vložil pritožbo po izteku pritožbenega roka, zato jo je po členu 358 ZPP v zvezi s členom 14 ZIP treba zavreči.

Izvršilno sodišče vselej na ugovor dolžnika razveljavi sklep o dovolitvi izvršbe, glede tistega dela sklepa o izvršbi, s katerim je dolžniku naloženo plačilo, pa bo tekel pravdni postopek enako kot pri ugovoru zoper plačilni nalog.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Upnik se je pravočasno pritožil zoper sklep, s katerim je prvostopno sodišče kot prepozno zavrglo njegovo pritožbo zoper sklep sodišča izdan po členu 55a ZIP.

Pritožba ni utemeljena.

Prvostopno sodišče je pravilno ugotovilo, da je upnik vložil pritožbo po izteku pritožbenega roka in jo je po členu 358 ZPP v zvezi s členom 14 ZIP zavrglo. Upnik tudi v pritožbi navaja le pavšalno trditev, da je bila pritožba pravočasna.

Zgolj podredno pa je na navedbe v pritožbi še dodati: Upnik je očitno prezrl določilo člena 55a ZIP, da izvršilno sodišče vselej na ugovor dolžnika (tudi neobrazložen - člen 55a/V ZIP) razveljavi sklep o dovolitvi izvršbe, glede tistega dela sklepa o izvršbi, s katerim je dolžniku naloženo plačilo, pa bo tekel pravdni postopek enako kot pri ugovoru zoper plačilni nalog. O utemeljenosti upnikove terjatve bo torej sodišče odločilo v pravdnem postopku, ki se uvede po uradni dolžnosti. Tako bi tudi z pravočasno pritožbo upnik ne mogel uspeti in bo utemeljenost zahtevka moral dokazovati v pravdnem postopku.