Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSM Sklep II Kp 22532/2015 ECLI:SI:VSMB:2023:II.KP.22532.2015 AI generated

Witness costs for service by proxy due to failure to collect summons are allowed under ZKP 94(1).

Case Number VSM Sklep II Kp 22532/2015
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 witness's appeal against a first-instance order requiring them to pay service costs. The witness failed to collect a court summons from their registered address, forcing the court to use a proxy server for delivery. Consequently, the court correctly applied Article 94(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act to impose these costs on the witness for their own fault.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

ZKP 94(1); If a witness fails to collect a court summons from their registered address, causing the court to resort to proxy service, the witness must bear the resulting costs under Article 94(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Keywords

AI generated
Criminal Procedure Act proxy service court summons witness costs failure to collect service by proxy fault-based liability

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 94(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (ZKP)
AI generated
VSM Sklep II Kp 44296/2015
Appeal court voids first instance ruling on witness costs due to lack of justification for service method.
VSM Sklep II Kp 55014/2013
Appeal granted; court ruled defendant not liable for service costs due to court's premature assignment to wrong address.
VSM Sklep IV Kp 47836/2016
Witness costs for service by agent due to witness's failure to collect papers are not exempted.
VSM Sklep IV Kp 49294/2015
Appeal allowed: Court voids first-instance order for costs when defendant was previously exempted by final judgment.
VSC Sklep II Kp 44766/2014
Court of Appeal voids first-instance costs order due to procedural error and lack of data. The court ruled that a separate costs order cannot determine who pays if the main judgment already settled liability. The court held that the lower court's costs order was invalid because the defendant was acquitted in the main judgment, and the specific costs order violated the procedural rules regarding who bears the costs. The court decided to void the first-instance costs order because the defendant was acquitted in the main judgment, and the specific costs order violated the procedural rules regarding who bears the costs. The court held that the lower court's costs order was invalid because the defendant was acquitted in the main judgment, and the specific costs order violated the procedural rules regarding who bears the costs. The court decided to void the first-instance costs order because the defendant was acquitted in the main judgment, and the specific costs order violated the procedural rules regarding who bears the costs.

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 priče A. A. se zavrne kot neutemeljena.

[JEDRO]

Kot pravilno navaja sodišče prve stopnje v izpodbijanem sklepu je v predmetni kazenski zadevi sodišče priči A. A. poskusilo vročiti sodno pisanje - vabilo na glavno obravnavo za dne 10. 5. 2022. Do vročitve pisanj ni prišlo, saj priča sodnega pisanja na prijavljenem naslovu bivanja, ni dvignila, zaradi česar je bilo sodišče primorano sodno pisanje priči A. A. vročiti preko pooblaščenega vročevalca. Glede na navedeno je prvostopno sodišče ravnalo prav, ko je v skladu s prvim odstavkom 94. člena ZKP priči naložilo stroške, ki jih je povzročil po svoji krivdi.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Z uvodoma navedenim sklepom je sodišče prve stopnje priči A. A. naložilo, da mora v roku 15 dni po prejemu plačilnega naloga, na račun Okrožnega sodišča v Mariboru plačati znesek 63,14 EUR, kar predstavlja stroške pooblaščenega vročevalca, za vročitev sodnih pisanj.

2. Zoper tak sklep se je A. A. pritožil. V pritožbi navaja, da ne razume, zakaj bi moral plačati navedeni znesek, saj ni prejel nobene pošte oziroma vabila s strani mariborskega sodišča.

3. Pregled zadeve na pritožbeni stopnji je pokazal, da pritožba ni utemeljena.

4. Kot pravilno navaja sodišče prve stopnje v izpodbijanem sklepu je v predmetni kazenski zadevi sodišče priči A. A. poskusilo vročiti sodno pisanje - vabilo na glavno obravnavo za dne 10. 5. 2022. Do vročitve pisanj ni prišlo (list. št. 2918 predmetnega kazenskega spisa), saj priča sodnega pisanja na prijavljenem naslovu bivanja, ni dvignila, zaradi česar je bilo sodišče primorano sodno pisanje priči A. A. vročiti preko pooblaščenega vročevalca. Glede na navedeno je prvostopno sodišče ravnalo prav, ko je v skladu s prvim odstavkom 94. člena Zakona o kazenskem postopku (v nadaljevanju ZKP) priči naložilo stroške, ki jih je povzročil po svoji krivdi.

5. Glede na pritožbene navedbe pritožnika, da mu vabilo pošta ni vročila pa je dodati le, da ravno zato, ker mu ni bilo mogoče vročiti vabila, saj kljub obvestilu, da mora vabilo dvigniti na pošti le-tega ni storil, so tudi nastali predmetni stroški z vročanjem.