Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSM sklep Cpg 340/93 ECLI:SI:VSMB:1993:CPG.340.93 AI generated

Appeal allowed; execution permit revoked due to procedural defect and lack of reasoning in first-instance decision.

Case Number VSM sklep Cpg 340/93
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Partially Allowed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The appellate court allowed the appeal and revoked the lower court's decision permitting execution by default. The creditor had timely appealed the rejection of the execution request, but the first-instance judgment failed to provide specific reasons for rejecting the creditor's amended request. The court ruled that a judicial decision must contain concrete grounds to allow for effective review and for the opposing party to formulate appropriate appeal arguments.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

člen 14 ZIP; člen 358 ZPP: When an execution request is rejected without specific reasons detailing the procedural defect, the decision is voidable, and the appeal must be allowed to ensure the right to effective judicial protection.

Keywords

AI generated
execution permit procedural defect lack of reasoning execution request appeal admissibility

Cited Legislation

AI generated
člen 14 ZIP
člen 358 ZPP
AI generated
VSM sklep Cpg 320/98
Appeal granted; lower court ruling voided for continued execution due to excessive document copies.
VSL sklep II Cpg 112/2001
Appeal allowed; first-instance court wrongly revoked enforcement request due to missing power of attorney. The power of attorney was validly signed by the legal representative.
VSL sklep II Cp 1823/2001
Appeal dismissed; claim for retrial barred by five-year objective deadline despite late discovery of perjury grounds.
VDSS sklep X Pdp 977/2013
Labor dispute appeal dismissed because plaintiff failed to prove prior negotiation attempts under collective agreement. The court ruled the appeal inadmissible due to lack of procedural prerequisites. The court held that a written negotiation proposal with justification is mandatory before filing a dispute. The plaintiff's vague references and late evidence failed to meet statutory requirements. The court emphasized strict adherence to pre-litigation negotiation steps. The decision reinforces the necessity of exhausting peaceful dispute resolution mechanisms. This case clarifies the burden of proof for procedural prerequisites in labor disputes.
VSL sklep I Cp 1953/2009
Appeal dismissed; restoration of proceedings for possession disturbance requires narrower grounds and shorter time limits than general appeals.

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 in se sklep o dovolitvi izvršbe opr. št. II Ig 1261/93-4 z dne 24.6.1993 po uradni dolžnosti razveljavi in zadeva vrne sodišču prve stopnje v ponovno odločanje.

[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 o zavrženju izvršilnega predloga. V pritožbi navaja, da je v roku in v skladu z zahtevo sodišča popravil izvršilni predlog.

V izvršilnem postopku se po členu 14 ZIP smiselno uporabljajo določbe Zakona o pravdnem postopku, če ni v izvršilnem zakonu drugače določeno.

V smislu te določbe je sodišče druge stopnje preizkusilo prvostopno odločbo v napadenem delu in v mejah uveljavljenih razlogov, kakor tudi v smeri tistih pritožbenih razlogov, na katere se mora ozirati po uradni dolžnosti. Pri tem preizkusu je pritožbeno sodišče po uradni dolžnosti ugotovilo, da je podana bistvena kršitev postopka iz 13. točke 354 člena ZPP, ker izpodbijana odločba nima razlogov.

Smiselno mora sodišče po členu 38/IV ZIP obrazložiti tudi zavrženje izvršilnega predloga.

Prvostopno sodišče je pravilno označilo pomanjkljivosti izv. predloga v svojem sklepu, s katerim je zahtevalo popravo. Od upnika je zahtevalo pravilno označbo dolžnika in tudi navedbo dolžnikovega žiro računa. V sklepu, s katerim je zavrglo izvršilni predlog, je le navedlo, da upnik ni popravil izvršilnega predloga, ni pa navedlo v čem je pravočasno vrnjeni predlog še vedno napačen. Sodna odločba mora imeti konkretne razloge, ki bi omogočali preizkus izpodbijane odločbe, stranki pa omogočili navajanje ustreznih pritožbenih razlogov.