Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSRS Sklep III DoR 8/2022 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2022:III.DOR.8.2022 AI generated

Supreme Court dismisses review application against a time-barred objection ruling in enforcement proceedings.

Case Number VSRS Sklep III DoR 8/2022
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court rejected the debtor's application for permission to file a review against the appellate court's decision to dismiss a time-barred objection. The core issue was whether the ruling on the objection fell within the narrow scope of decisions subject to review under the Enforcement and Security Act. Since the law explicitly limits review to specific final rulings and excludes procedural decisions like those on time-barred objections, the court held that no review could be permitted.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

10. člen ZIZ; Revizija v izvršilnih postopkih je omejena na točno določene sklepe, zoper katere je bila zakonom določena pritožba, in zoper ostale sklepe, kot je sklep o ugovoru po izteku roka, ni dovoljena.

Keywords

AI generated
enforcement proceedings review application time-barred objection ZIZ article 10 appellate court ruling

Cited Legislation

AI generated
10. člen ZIZ
377. člen ZPP
367.b. člen ZPP
15. člen ZIZ
324. člen ZPP

Cited Case Law

AI generated
II DoR 143/2019
Appeal against a debtor's objection to execution is dismissed as review is not permitted under the Enforcement Act.
II DoR 287/2018
Supreme Court rejects review request against enforcement objection rejection due to new law limiting review scope.
II DoR 366/2018
Supreme Court dismisses review request against enforcement order as new law restricts review to specific rejection decisions.
II DoR 596/2019
Supreme Court rejects review request against enforcement transfer orders as review is limited to specific final decisions.
II DoR 207/2020
1 Enako stališče je Vrhovno sodišče že zavzelo v sklepih II DoR 143/2019, II DoR 287/2018, II DoR 366/2018, II DoR 596/2019, II DoR 207/2020 z dne 10.
AI generated
Sklep I Up 706/2001
Supreme Court dismisses appeal for restoration of status due to lack of justified delay reason attributable to client's fault.
VSC Sklep I Cp 321/2025
Appeal dismissed; EU case law on consumer credit restitution does not override domestic interim order conditions.
Sklep II Ips 132/2010
Appeal against a stay of proceedings order is rejected as the procedure was not concluded by that ruling.
VSM sklep II Ip 556/2010
Appeal dismissed: Employer's employee pregnancy absence did not justify late objection to enforcement order.
VSL Sklep I Cp 225/2021
Appeal dismissed; delay in filing objection not excused by pandemic or lack of knowledge of service date.

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

Predlog se zavrže.

[JEDRO]

Zakonodajalec je revizijo v izvršilnih postopkih omejil le na točno določene sklepe.

Sklep, izdan o ugovoru po izteku roka, ne spada med tiste, glede katerih bi bila revizija dovoljena.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Sodišče druge stopnje je pritožbo zavrnilo in potrdilo sklep sodišča prve stopnje, da se ugovor po izteku roka zavrže.

2. Zoper sklep sodišča druge stopnje vlaga dolžnik predlog za dopustitev revizije.

3. Predlog ni dovoljen.

4. V skladu s prvim odstavku 10. člena Zakona o izvršbi in zavarovanju (ZIZ) je zoper sklep, izdan na drugi stopnji, s katerim je pravnomočno odločeno, da se predlog za izvršbo zavrže ali zavrne ali se predlogu za izvršbo ugodi, dovoljena revizija pod pogoji, ki jih določa zakon, ki ureja pravdni postopek. Zakonodajalec je s tem revizijo v izvršilnih postopkih omejil le na točno določene sklepe. Zoper ostale sklepe, izdane v postopkih izvršbe in zavarovanja, revizija še vedno ni dovoljena. 1 Sklep, izdan v obravnavani zadevi, ne spada med tiste, glede katerih bi bila revizija dovoljena. Če revizija ni dovoljena, pa je ni mogoče niti dopustiti.

5. Iz navedenih razlogov je Vrhovno sodišče predlog zavrglo (377. člen v zvezi s prvim odstavkom 367.b člena ZPP in 15. členom ZIZ).

6. Sklep je bil sprejet soglasno (sedmi odstavek 324. člena ZPP).

1 Enako stališče je Vrhovno sodišče že zavzelo v sklepih II DoR 143/2019, II DoR 287/2018, II DoR 366/2018, II DoR 596/2019, II DoR 207/2020 z dne 10. 7. 2020 idr.