Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSL Sklep I Cpg 158/2022 ECLI:SI:VSLJ:2022:I.CPG.158.2022 AI generated

Appeal dismissed; court notes prior ruling on fee waiver and lack of new grounds for fee payment delay.

Case Number VSL Sklep I Cpg 158/2022
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The appeal court rejected the appellant's request to withdraw the notice of appeal, confirming the first-instance court's decision. The appellant argued that business liquidity issues prevented fee payment during a pandemic-related quarantine period, but the court found these claims insufficiently substantiated. The court ruled that since a separate decision on fee waiver or payment extension had already been made and appealed, these specific arguments were inadmissible in this proceeding.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

116. člen ZPP; 365. člen ZPP: Where a court has already ruled on a request for fee waiver or payment extension via a separate decision, such grounds cannot be raised in a subsequent appeal regarding the withdrawal of the notice of appeal.

Keywords

AI generated
fee waiver appeal payment extension inadmissible prior decision res judicata quarantine fee delay withdrawal of notice appeal

Cited Legislation

AI generated
116. člen ZPP
Tudi v primeru utemeljenosti omenjenih navedb pritožnik z njimi v pritožbenem postopku ne bi mogel uspeti, saj gre za okoliščine, za katere ima na voljo institut vrnitve v prejšnje stanje (116. člen ZPP).
2. točka 365. člen ZPP
člena ZPP), jo je zavrnilo in sklep sodišča prve stopnje potrdilo (2. točka 365. člen ZPP).
drugi odstavek 350. člena ZPP
Pritožba tožene stranke glede na navedeno ni utemeljena in ker pritožbeno sodišče obenem ni našlo kršitev, na katere je dolžno paziti po uradni dolžnosti (drugi odstavek 350. člena ZPP), jo je zavrnilo in sklep sodišča prve stopnje potrdilo (2.
AI generated
VSM sklep I Cpg 295/2015
Appeal dismissed; court upheld dismissal of appeal due to unpaid court fee for notice of appeal.
VSL sodba in sklep II Cpg 1878/2014
Appeal against dismissal allowed due to late court fee payment; appeal against judgment dismissed for lack of grounds.
VSL sklep I Cpg 823/2009
Sodne takse sicer res ni plačala tožena stranka sama, temveč so jo plačali štirje člani tožene stranke – M.J., S.T., S.T.
VSL sklep III Ip 939/2015
Appeal against enforcement order dismissed; appeal against fee payment order allowed due to timely fee payment.
VSL sklep II Cpg 1263/2015
Appeal dismissed; court upheld first instance ruling that withdrawal of appeal was valid due to unpaid court fees. The appeal was rejected because the defendant failed to pay court fees within the deadline, and the court correctly deemed the appeal notice withdrawn. The court rejected the defendant's attempt to overturn the presumption of service based on the delivery certificate, as such presumptions cannot be easily rebutted without substantial evidence. The decision emphasizes that procedural deadlines for fee payment are strict and that the burden of proof lies with the party claiming non-service. The court ruled that the first instance court acted correctly in finding the appeal notice withdrawn due to non-payment. The appeal was dismissed because the defendant could not provide sufficient evidence to challenge the validity of the service notice. The court held that the presumption of service via delivery certificate stands unless strongly contradicted by evidence. The defendant's claim of non-service was rejected due to lack of specific factual arguments and supporting documentation. The court confirmed that the first instance court's decision to treat the appeal as withdrawn was legally sound. The appeal was dismissed because the defendant failed to meet the statutory requirements for challenging the service of the appeal notice.

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 sodišča prve stopnje potrdi.

[JEDRO]

Pritožbene navedbe, da je bil pritožnik v času, ko bi moral plačati sodno takso v karanteni zaradi Covid-19 niso dovolj konkretizirane, niti podprte z ustreznimi dokazi. Tudi v primeru utemeljenosti omenjenih navedb pritožnik z njimi v pritožbenem postopku ne bi mogel uspeti, saj gre za okoliščine, za katere ima na voljo institut vrnitve v prejšnje stanje (116. člen ZPP).

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Sodišče prve stopnje je z izpodbijanim sklepom ugotovilo, da je tožena stranka umaknila napoved pritožbe z dne 19. 8. 2021.

2. Zoper navedeni sklep je tožena stranka vložila pritožbo iz vseh pritožbenih razlogov. Pritožbenih stroškov ni priglasila.

3. Pritožba ni utemeljena.

4. Pritožnik v pritožbi navaja, da je zaprosil za odlog plačila, zaradi poslovnih in likvidnostnih razlogov, a sodišče podanih navedb ni upoštevalo.

5. Kot je pojasnilo sodišče prve stopnje v izpodbijanem sklepu, je o predlogu tožene stranke za oprostitev oziroma odlog plačila sodne takse odločilo s sklepom X Pg 422/2021 z dne 4. 1. 2022, s katerim je predlog za oprostitev zavrglo, predlog za odlog pa zavrnilo. Zoper omenjeni sklep je imel pritožnik možnost pritožbe, v kateri bi lahko navajal razloge, ki jih navaja v obravnavani pritožbi. Ker je o oprostitvi oziroma odlogu sodišče prve stopnje torej že odločilo z navedenim sklepom, zoper katerega pritožnik ni podal pritožbe, v izpodbijanem sklepu pa je odločilo o umiku napovedi pritožbe 1 in ne o oprostitvi oziroma odlogu, omenjene pritožbene navedbe niso dopustne.

6. Pritožbene navedbe, da je bil pritožnik v času, ko bi moral plačati sodno takso v karanteni zaradi Covid-19 niso dovolj konkretizirane, niti podprte z ustreznimi dokazi. Tudi v primeru utemeljenosti omenjenih navedb pritožnik z njimi v pritožbenem postopku ne bi mogel uspeti, saj gre za okoliščine, za katere ima na voljo institut vrnitve v prejšnje stanje (116. člen ZPP).

7. Pritožba tožene stranke glede na navedeno ni utemeljena in ker pritožbeno sodišče obenem ni našlo kršitev, na katere je dolžno paziti po uradni dolžnosti (drugi odstavek 350. člena ZPP), jo je zavrnilo in sklep sodišča prve stopnje potrdilo (2. točka 365. člen ZPP).

1 Ker sodna taksa tudi po izdanem sklepu z dne 4. 1. 2022 ni bila plačana.