Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VDSS Sklep Pdp 538/2023 ECLI:SI:VDSS:2023:PDP.538.2023 AI generated

Appeal allowed: Court-appointed temporary agent exempt from paying lawyer's fee under special ZST-1 rule.

Case Number VDSS Sklep Pdp 538/2023
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The appellate court overturned the first-instance decision that had dismissed the appeal due to non-payment of a lawyer's fee. The appellant argued that a court-appointed temporary agent was exempt from paying this fee, citing a specific provision in the Court Costs Act. The court ruled that this special exemption overrides the general requirement, meaning the appeal was not procedurally invalid despite the unpaid fee.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

ZST-1 4. člen; ZST-1 8. člen: A special provision exempting a court-appointed temporary agent from paying a lawyer's fee overrides the general rule requiring payment as a procedural prerequisite for court actions.

Keywords

AI generated
court-appointed temporary agent lawyer's fee exemption Court Costs Act procedural prerequisite appeal admissibility special provision override legal representation costs

Cited Legislation

AI generated
4. člen ZST-1
8. člen ZST-1
19. člen ZDSS-1
365. člen ZPP
350. člen ZPP
366. člen ZPP

Cited Case Law

AI generated
VSL I Cp 1383/2020
s sklepi VSL I Cp 1383/2020 in II Cp 802/2017, VSM I Cpg 328/2017 in I Ip 1111/2016 ter strokovni članek mag.
II Cp 802/2017
Appeal dismissed; temporary guardian not liable for client's court fees, but client remains liable.
VSM I Cpg 328/2017
s sklepi VSL I Cp 1383/2020 in II Cp 802/2017, VSM I Cpg 328/2017 in I Ip 1111/2016 ter strokovni članek mag.
I Ip 1111/2016
Court allows fee waiver request for debtor represented by temporary guardian under special tax law provisions.
AI generated
VSL Sklep I Cp 702/2019
Appeal dismissed because late court fee payment via third party does not extend the filing deadline.
VSL Sklep I Cp 1282/2023
Appeal dismissed because the 15-day filing deadline expired on a Monday after the 15-day service period ended on Saturday.
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.
VSL sklep I Ip 2614/2016
Court allows appeals against dismissal for non-payment of court fees, ruling no fee applies to such appeals.
VSL Sklep I Cpg 158/2022
Appeal dismissed; court notes prior ruling on fee waiver and lack of new grounds for fee payment delay.

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. Pritožbi se ugodi in se izpodbijani sklep razveljavi.

II. Toženka sama krije svoje stroške pritožbe.

[JEDRO]

Začasni zastopnik stranke, ki ga je postavilo sodišče, ni dolžan plačevati taks za tistega, ki ga zastopa. Specialna določba 4. člena ZST-1, po kateri začasni zastopnik stranke v postopku, ki ga je postavilo sodišče, ni dolžan plačati sodne takse za zastopanca, razveljavlja splošno določbo 8. člena ZST-1, ki opredeljuje plačilo sodne takse kot procesno predpostavko za opravo dejanj sodišča.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Sodišče prve stopnje je z izpodbijanim sklepom z dne 5. 9. 2023 ugotovilo, da je pritožba tožene stranke, vložena 22. 6. 2023 zoper sodbo z dne 29. 5. 2023, umaknjena (I. točka izreka), in je postopek s pritožbo ustavilo (II. točka izreka).

2. Zoper sklep vlaga pritožbo toženka zaradi vseh pritožbenih razlogov in predlaga njegovo odpravo. Navaja, da je bil v zadevi toženki zaradi nedosegljivosti postavljen začasni zastopnik. Sklicuje se na sodno prakso, po kateri v primeru začasnega zastopanja stranke plačilo sodne takse ni procesna predpostavka za obravnavo pritožbe, saj začasni zastopnik ni dolžan plačati sodne takse za stranko. Meni, da je treba pritožbo kljub neplačilu sodne takse vzeti v obravnavo. Priglaša stroške pritožbe.

3. Pritožba je utemeljena.

4. Pritožbeno sodišče je izpodbijani sklep preizkusilo v okviru pritožbenih razlogov in razlogov, na katere pazi po uradni dolžnosti na podlagi 19. člena Zakona o delovnih in socialnih sodiščih (ZDSS-1) v povezavi z drugim odstavk0m 350. člena v zvezi s 366. členom Zakona o pravdnem postopku (ZPP).

5. V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso začasni zastopnik stranke, ki ga je postavilo sodišče, ni dolžan plačevati taks za tistega, ki ga zastopa. Specialna določba 4. člena ZST-1, po kateri začasni zastopnik stranke v postopku, ki ga je postavilo sodišče, ni dolžan plačati sodne takse za zastopanca, razveljavlja splošno določbo 8. člena ZST-1, ki opredeljuje plačilo sodne takse kot procesno predpostavko za opravo dejanj sodišča. Taksna obveznost je sicer nastala, vendar to ne pomeni, da se pritožba šteje za umaknjeno, temveč, da sodišče prve stopnje neplačano takso vpiše v seznam taks in jo kasneje, ko je znano premoženje zastopanih, izterja, zadevo pa začne obravnavati brez plačila sodne takse, ki torej v takem primeru ni procesna predpostavka (prim. s sklepi VSL I Cp 1383/2020 in II Cp 802/2017, VSM I Cpg 328/2017 in I Ip 1111/2016 ter strokovni članek mag. Oštir T., Izdaja plačilnega naloga za plačilo sodne takse in ugovor zoper plačilni nalog, Pravosodni bilten, št. 3/2021, str. 253).

6. Glede na navedeno je sodišče prve stopnje zmotno uporabilo materialno pravo s tem, da je pritožbo toženke zaradi plačila sodne takse štelo za umaknjeno, zato je bilo treba pritožbi ugoditi in izpodbijani sklep razveljaviti (3. točka 365. člena ZPP).

7. Toženka skladno s prvim odstavkom 154. v povezavi s prvim odstavkom 165. člena ZPP sama krije svoje stroške pritožbe zoper ta sklep, saj v tem individualnem delovnem sporu (prim. sodbo pritožbenega sodišča Pdp 538/2023 z dne 23. 11. 2023) ni uspela.