Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSK Sodba II Kp 46512/2018 ECLI:SI:VSKP:2022:II.KP.46512.2018 AI generated

Appeal dismissed; court held execution of fine conversion requires defendant's request under Criminal Code provisions.

Case Number VSK Sodba II Kp 46512/2018
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against a first-instance judgment converting a monetary fine into a short-term prison sentence. The defendant's counsel argued that the lower court failed to consider alternative execution methods like community service, but the court found no request for such measures in the file. Consequently, the court ruled that without a formal request, the lower court was not obligated to evaluate other execution options under the Criminal Code.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

12th paragraph of Article 86 of the Criminal Code; Article 4 of Article 87 of the Criminal Procedure Act: The court decides on the admissibility of executing a penalty in a manner prescribed by Article 86 of the Criminal Code only upon the defendant's request.

Keywords

AI generated
monetary fine execution prison sentence conversion defendant request requirement Criminal Code provisions appeal dismissal procedural obligation short-term imprisonment

Cited Legislation

AI generated
12th paragraph of Article 86 of the Criminal Code
Article 4 of Article 87 of the Criminal Procedure Act
Article 5 of Article 87 of the Criminal Procedure Act
Article 12 of Article 86 of the Criminal Code
Article 370 of the Criminal Procedure Act
Article 378 of the Criminal Procedure Act
Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act
Article 391 of the Criminal Procedure Act
Article 95 of the Criminal Procedure Act
AI generated
VSM Sodba IV Kp 21686/2015
Appeal dismissed because defendant wasted installment payment option and cannot re-request it.
VSL Sodba VII Kp 17754/2012
Court rules that statute of limitations for fine execution does not run while installment payments are legally permitted.
VSK Sodba II Kp 47786/2016
Appeal dismissed; court enforces mandatory conversion of unpaid fine to imprisonment under KZ-1 Art. 87(1).
VSL Sklep II Kp 23071/2014
Appeal allowed; lower court violated criminal procedure law by enforcing a fine from a judgment that lost legal validity due to a merger proceeding.
VSM Sodba II Kp 16929/2015
Appeal dismissed; inability to pay fine is an enforcement issue, not a ground to alter the penalty type under KZ-1. The court rejected the appeal because the defendant failed to specify procedural violations and incorrectly argued that inability to pay a fine should change its nature from a fine to imprisonment. The court held that the ability to pay is determined during enforcement proceedings, not at the sentencing stage, and since the first-instance court correctly found the fine uncollectible due to the defendant's lack of assets, the appeal was unfounded. The appeal was dismissed, and the defendant was exempted from court fees due to social circumstances. The core legal issue concerns the distinction between the imposition of a monetary penalty and its subsequent enforcement, clarifying that a defendant's current inability to pay does not retroactively justify converting a fine into imprisonment under Article 87 of the Criminal Code. The court emphasized that the first-instance court's finding of uncollectibility was correct and not subject to re-examination on appeal. The appeal was dismissed, and the defendant was exempted from court fees due to social circumstances. The core legal issue concerns the distinction between the imposition of a monetary penalty and its subsequent enforcement, clarifying that a defendant's current inability to pay does not retroactively justify converting a fine into imprisonment under Article 87 of the Criminal Code. The court emphasized that the first-instance court's finding of uncollectibility was correct and not subject to re-examination on appeal. The appeal was dismissed, and the defendant was exempted from court fees due to social circumstances. The core legal issue concerns the distinction between the imposition of a monetary penalty and its subsequent enforcement, clarifying that a defendant's current inability to pay does not retroactively justify converting a fine into imprisonment under Article 87 of the Criminal Code. The court emphasized that the first-instance court's finding of uncollectibility was correct and not subject to re-examination on appeal. The appeal was dismissed, and the defendant was exempted from court fees due to social circumstances.

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 se kot neutemeljena zavrne in potrdi sodba sodišča prve stopnje.

II. Po prvem odstavku 98. člena v zvezi s četrtim odstavkom 95. člena ZKP se obsojenec oprosti dolžnosti plačila stroškov pritožbenega postopka.

[JEDRO]

V določbi dvanajstega odstavka 86. člena KZ-1 je določeno, da o dopustnosti izvršitve kazni na načine, določene v 86. členu KZ-1 odloča sodišče na predlog obdolženca s sodbo, s katero izreče kazen zapora ali na predlog obsojenca s posebnim sklepom. Iz spisovnega gradiva je razvidno, da obsojenčevega predloga oz. predloga njegovega zagovornika v tej smeri ni bilo, zato sodišče prve stopnje o možnosti izvršitve denarne kazni na način iz četrtega odstavka 87. člena ZKP ni moglo, niti ni bilo dolžno odločati.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Z izpodbijano sodbo je Okrožno sodišče v Kopru razsodilo, da se preostanek denarne kazni v višini 142 dnevnih zneskov, t.j. 1.420,00 EUR, ki je bila obsojenemu A. A. izrečena s sodbo Okrožnega sodišča v Kopru opr. štev. I K 46512/2018 z dne 21.1.2019 izvrši tako, da se na podlagi prvega odstavka 87. člena KZ-1 spremeni v zaporno kazen v trajanju 71 (enainsedemdeset) dni zapora.

2. Zoper to sodbo se zaradi pritožbenega razloga kršitev kazenskega zakonika, tedaj pritožbenega razloga po 2. točki prvega odstavka 370. člena ZKP pritožuje obsojenčev zagovornik. Pritožbenemu sodišču predlaga, da pritožbi ugodi in izpodbijano sodbo spremeni tako, da obsojencu preostanek denarne kazni spremeni v delo v splošno korist oz. podrejeno, da prvostopenjsko sodno odločbo razveljavi in postopek vrne v novo odločanje pred spremenjeni senat.

3. Pritožba ni utemeljena.

4. Obsojenčevi zagovorniki v pritožbi navajajo da je "sodišče prve stopnje zaradi obrambi neznanih razlogov popolnoma prezrlo četrti odstavek 87. člena KZ-1, ki določa, da se lahko denarna kazen do 360 dnevnih zneskov izvrši tudi tako, da obsojenec v obdobju največ enega leta namesto plačila denarne kazni opravi delo v splošno korist brez nadomestila". Pritožbeno sodišče ugotavlja, da bi pritožnikom razlogi, zakaj je sodišče prve stopnje tako ravnalo, morali biti znani. V petem odstavku 87. člena KZ-1 je namreč določeno, da se glede vprašanj, ki niso urejena v določbi četrtega odstavka istega člena smiselno uporabljajo določbe osmega do trinajstega odstavka 86. člena Kazenskega zakonika, pri čemer je v določbi dvanajstega odstavka 86. člena KZ-1 določeno, da o dopustnosti izvršitve kazni na načine, določene v 86. členu KZ-1 odloča sodišče na predlog obdolženca s sodbo, s katero izreče kazen zapora ali na predlog obsojenca s posebnim sklepom. Iz spisovnega gradiva je razvidno, da obsojenčevega predloga oz. predloga njegovega zagovornika v tej smeri ni bilo, zato sodišče prve stopnje o možnosti izvršitve denarne kazni na način iz četrtega odstavka 87. člena ZKP ni moglo, niti ni bilo dolžno odločati.

5. Kolikor pa zagovorniki izražajo svoje pomisleke glede posledic kratkotrajnih zapornih kazni na resocializacijske učinke kaznovanja, pa pritožbeno sodišče ugotavlja, da je tako njihovo razmišljanje sicer hvalevredno, vendar za konkretno odločitev pritožbenega sodišča povsem nepomembno.

6. Zagovorniki so v pritožbi predlagali, da sodišče obsojenca in njegove zagovornike obvesti o pritožbeni seji. Višje sodišče temu predlogu ni ugodilo, ker ne gre za odločanje o glavni stvari, temveč za postopek, ki sodi v XIII. poglavje kazenskega postopkovnika (Izvršitev odločb, 129.a čl.), pa tudi sicer bi obsojenec in njegovi zagovorniki na pritožbeni seji, razen tega, kar je že navedeno v pritožbi sami, v smislu tretjega odstavka 378. člena ZKP h končni odločitvi sodišča ne mogli ničesar dodatnega prispevati.

7. Preizkus izpodbijane sodbe, ki ga je pritožbeno sodišče opravilo v mejah iz 383. člena ZKP nikakršnih nepravilnosti ni pokazal, zaradi česar je bilo potrebno na podlagi 391. člena ZKP pritožbo kot neutemeljeno zavrniti in potrditi sodbo sodišča prve stopnje.

8. Kljub temu, da odločitev pritožbenega sodišča ni v korist obsojenca, ga je sklenilo pritožbeno sodišče dolžnosti plačila stroškov pritožbenega postopka na podlagi četrtega odstavka 95. člena ZKP oprostiti. Gre za obsojenca, ki je šibkega premoženjskega stanja in brez premoženja ter brez stalnih dohodkov, tako, da bi s plačilom stroškov pritožbenega postopka bilo obsojenčevo premoženjsko stanje še bolj ogroženo.