Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSL Sklep II Cpg 32/2021 ECLI:SI:VSLJ:2021:II.CPG.32.2021 AI generated

Appeal dismissed because plaintiff failed to timely respond to service on registered business address.

Case Number VSL Sklep II Cpg 32/2021
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The higher court dismissed the appeal and upheld the first-instance decision declaring the plaintiff's notice of appeal withdrawn. The plaintiff argued they never received the court fee order, claiming non-service, while the court confirmed service was validly effected on the registered business address where they received other correspondence. The court ruled that since the plaintiff did not respond to the order within the statutory period, the withdrawal was proper and the appeal lacked merit.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

ZPP 458. odst. 5; 360. odst. 1, 365. 2. točka, 366. člen: An appeal is deemed withdrawn if the party fails to respond to a court fee order served on their registered business address within the prescribed time limit.

Keywords

AI generated
service of process business address withdrawal of appeal court fees small claims procedure timely response valid service

Cited Legislation

AI generated
495. člen Zakona o pravdnem postopku (ZPP)
458. člen ZPP
350. člen ZPP
360. člen ZPP
365. člen ZPP
366. člen ZPP
AI generated
VSC Sklep I Ip 216/2021
Appeal dismissed because failure to pay court fees as a procedural prerequisite renders the appeal withdrawn. The court ruled that non-payment of court fees for an appeal constitutes a procedural prerequisite under Article 29b of the Enforcement Act. Consequently, the appeal was deemed withdrawn, preventing substantive review of the underlying objection. The court emphasized that the absence of fee payment bars content-based examination of the appeal. This decision reinforces the mandatory nature of court fee payment in enforcement proceedings. The ruling upholds the principle that procedural defects preclude further judicial consideration of the case.
VSL Sklep Cst 178/2023
Appeal dismissed; failure to pay court fee within deadline renders appeal withdrawn under ZPP.
VDSS Sklep Psp 188/2025
Appeal dismissed as late; court held deadline extended to next working day after Sunday expiration. Appeal filed after deadline was rejected.
VSL sklep I Cp 2737/2016
Appeal dismissed; appeal withdrawn due to unpaid court fees after fee waiver request was legally rejected.
VSL sklep II Cp 259/2011
Appeal dismissed; court fee obligation arises upon appeal filing regardless of prior fee waiver request rejection.

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 in se izpodbijani sklep potrdi.

[JEDRO]

Vročitev je bila opravljena na naslovu, ki je v sodnem registru naveden kot poslovni naslov in na katerega je tožena stranka prejemala druga pisanja v tem postopku. Glede na navedeno višje sodišče ne dvomi, da je bil plačilni nalog toženi stranki pravilno vročen in da se nanj ni pravočasno odzvala, zaradi česar je sodišče prve stopnje njeno pritožbo pravilno štelo za umaknjeno.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Sodišče prve stopnje je z izpodbijanim sklepom odločilo, da se napoved pritožbe tožene stranke z dne 3. 7. 2020 šteje za umaknjeno.

2. Zoper sklep se je pritožila tožena strank in navedla, da ni prejela plačilnega naloga za plačilo sodne takse za pritožbo ter predlagala razveljavitev spornega sklepa in vrnitev zadeve sodišču prve stopnje v nov postopek.

3. Pritožba ni utemeljena.

4. Ker se tožbeni zahtevek nanaša na denarno terjatev, ki ne presega 4.000,00 EUR, teče obravnavani gospodarski spor po prvem odstavku 495. člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku (ZPP) po določbah postopka v sporih majhne vrednosti. O pritožbi je na podlagi petega odstavka 458. člena ZPP odločala sodnica posameznica.

5. Iz obvestila o pošiljki izhaja, da je bil plačilni nalog toženi stranki s fikcijo vročitve vročen 23. 7. 2020. Vročitev je bila opravljena na naslovu, ki je v sodnem registru naveden kot poslovni naslov in na katerega je tožena stranka prejemala druga pisanja v tem postopku. Glede na navedeno višje sodišče ne dvomi, da je bil plačilni nalog toženi stranki pravilno vročen in da se nanj ni pravočasno odzvala, zaradi česar je sodišče prve stopnje njeno pritožbo pravilno štelo za umaknjeno.

6. Glede na navedeno pritožba ni utemeljena. Ker višje sodišče tudi ob uradnem preizkusu izpodbijanega sklepa ni zaznalo nobenih kršitev iz drugega odstavka 350. člena ZPP v zvezi s 366. členom ZPP, je pritožbo kot neutemeljeno zavrnilo in izpodbijani sklep potrdilo (2. točka 365. člena ZPP), pri čemer je presojalo le pritožbene navedbe, ki so odločilnega pomena (prvi odstavek 360. člena ZPP v zvezi s 366. členom ZPP).