Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSM Sklep IV Kp 18913/2014 ECLI:SI:VSMB:2021:IV.KP.18913.2014 AI generated

Appeal dismissed; court held that converting a fine to imprisonment precludes further installment payment requests.

Case Number VSM Sklep IV Kp 18913/2014
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The appeal by convicted defendant D. K. was rejected as unfounded by the Second Instance Court. The first-instance court had previously approved an installment plan for a fine but converted the remaining debt into a nine-day prison sentence due to non-payment. The defendant argued financial hardship, but the court ruled that once a fine is validly converted to imprisonment, a new request for installment payments is legally impermissible.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

ZKP 129.a odst. 3; ZKP 402 odst. 3: Once a monetary penalty is validly converted into a custodial sentence due to non-payment, the convicted person loses the right to subsequently request an installment payment plan for the same debt.

Keywords

AI generated
monetary penalty conversion installment payment plan custodial sentence substitution non-payment of fine criminal procedure appeal repeated payment request financial hardship defense

Cited Legislation

AI generated
129.a odst. 3 ZKP
402 odst. 3 ZKP
95. odst. 4 ZKP
98. odst. 1 ZKP
AI generated
VSM Sklep IV Kp 20615/2017
Appeal dismissed because request for installment payment of fine was filed after the three-month payment deadline expired.
VSL Sklep VII Kp 62008/2019
Appeal dismissed; court held defendant's request for installment payment was untimely despite pandemic suspension of procedural deadlines.
VSM sklep IV Kp 33572/2015
Appeal dismissed because Criminal Procedure Act explicitly prohibits installment payments for disciplinary fines. Witnesses failed to justify absence, so fine stands.
VSL sklep I Cp 1511/2011
Appeal dismissed because prior waiver request consumed the request for payment deferral or installments.
VSM Sklep IV Kp 3736/2017
Appeal dismissed because defendant's late request for fee waiver and fine payment plan violated statutory deadlines under ZKP. The court rejected the appeal as the requests were filed after the expiration of the prescribed time limits. The court upheld the first-instance decision, ruling that late submissions are inadmissible regardless of the defendant's financial situation or prior conduct. The judgment emphasizes strict adherence to procedural time limits for payment requests in criminal proceedings. The court found no merit in the defendant's arguments regarding financial hardship or refusal to pay. Consequently, the appeal was rejected, and the original decision stands. The key issue was the timeliness of the payment requests under the Criminal Procedure Act.

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 obsojenega D. K. se kot neutemeljena zavrne.

II. Obsojenec se oprosti plačila sodne takse kot stroška pritožbenega postopka.

[JEDRO]

Sodišče prve stopnje je v napadenem sklepu pojasnilo, da je bilo obsojenčevemu predlogu za obročno plačilo denarne kazni ugodeno, a svojih obveznosti obsojenec ni poravnal, zaradi česar je odločilo, da se preostanek denarne kazni v znesku 555,11 EUR izvrši tako, da se mu določi kazen 9 dni zapora, prav tako pa, da njegovemu ponovnemu predlogu, potem ko je bila denarna kazen utemeljeno spremenjena v zaporno kazen, ni mogoče ugoditi in mu ponovno omogočiti plačila denarne kazni v obrokih.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Okrajno sodišče v Gornji Radgoni je s sklepom III Kr 18913/2014 z dne 3. 2. 2021 na podlagi tretjega odstavka 129.a člena Zakona o kazenskem postopku (v nadaljevanju ZKP) kot nedovoljenega zavrglo predlog obsojenega D. K. za obročno plačilo denarne kazni z dne 16. 11. 2020.

2. Zoper sklep se je pritožil obsojenec, ki se v pritožbi smiselno zavzema za spremembo napadenega sklepa tako, da pritožbeno sodišče njegovemu predlogu ugodi in mu dovoli obročno plačilo denarne kazni.

3. Pritožba ni utemeljena.

4. Sodišče prve stopnje je v napadenem sklepu pojasnilo, da je bilo obsojenčevemu predlogu za obročno plačilo denarne kazni ugodeno, a svojih obveznosti obsojenec ni poravnal, zaradi česar je odločilo, da se preostanek denarne kazni v znesku 555,11 EUR izvrši tako, da se mu določi kazen 9 dni zapora, prav tako pa, da njegovemu ponovnemu predlogu, potem ko je bila denarna kazen utemeljeno spremenjena v zaporno kazen, ni mogoče ugoditi in mu ponovno omogočiti plačila denarne kazni v obrokih. Pritožbene navedbe, da je napadeni sklep posledica nerazumevanja obsojenčevih premoženjskih razmer, da obsojenec prejema le 308,00 EUR mesečno in da zato vztraja pri obročnem plačevanju 100,00 EUR mesečno ter ostale, ki jih navaja pritožba, pravilnosti odločitve prvostopenjskega sodišča in razlogov napadenega sklepa ne morejo v ničemer omajati in pritožbene navedbe zato niso utemeljene.

5. Po obrazloženem je sklep sodišča prve stopnje pravilen in zakonit, zaradi česar je pritožbeno sodišče pritožbo obsojenca kot neutemeljeno zavrnilo (tretji odstavek 402. člena ZKP).

6. Glede na obsojenčeve premoženjske razmere je pritožbeno sodišče odločilo, da ga plačila sodne takse, ki bi jo moral plačati zaradi neuspešne pritožbe, oprosti (četrti odstavek 95. člena ZKP in prvi odstavek 98. člena ZKP).