Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSM Sklep IV Kp 25361/2022 ECLI:SI:VSMB:2025:IV.KP.25361.2022 AI generated

Criminal appeal against a High Court ruling is dismissed as inadmissible under the Criminal Procedure Act.

Case Number VSM Sklep IV Kp 25361/2022
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Court of Appeal rejected the victim's appeal against the High Court's ruling, declaring it inadmissible under the Criminal Procedure Act. The victim argued for a retrial based on constitutional rights and new evidence of the defendant's debt, but the court found no statutory basis for such an appeal. The decision rests on the explicit exclusion of appeals against High Court rulings in the Criminal Procedure Act, leaving only specific exceptions for Supreme Court appeals.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

ZKP 375. odst. 2; ZKP 398. člen: Appeals against rulings of the High Court are excluded by law, except for specific Supreme Court review cases, rendering such appeals inadmissible.

Keywords

AI generated
Criminal Procedure Act inadmissible appeal High Court ruling statutory exclusion victim appeal

Cited Legislation

AI generated
ZKP 375. odst. 2
ZKP 398. člen
ZKP 402. člen
AI generated
Sodba I Ips 388/2006
Court dismisses threat charge due to vague wording failing to meet criminal intent requirements under Slovenian law.
VSM Sklep IV Kp 9439/2018
Appeal dismissed because victim filed complaint after expiration of non-extendable appeal deadline.
VSM Sklep II Kp 4856/2016
Appeal against rejection of defendant's objection to indictment dismissed as non-appealable under Criminal Procedure Act.
VSM Sklep IV Kp 15312/2023
Appeal dismissed because victim as prosecutor lacks standing to file a request for legality protection under ZKP. The court ruled the lower court correctly rejected the request as inadmissible. The victim's appeal was rejected due to lack of standing under Article 421 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The court held that only specific parties can file legality protection requests, excluding the victim as prosecutor. The appeal was dismissed because the victim lacked standing to file the request. The court confirmed the lower court's decision was correct. The appeal was rejected as the victim had no standing. The court affirmed the lower court's ruling based on statutory limitations. The appeal was dismissed due to lack of standing for the victim. The court upheld the lower court's decision on procedural grounds.
VSRS Sklep I Kr 23403/2016
Appeal dismissed; failure to conduct specific investigative acts does not prove judicial bias warranting venue transfer.

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 oškodovanega A. A. se kot neutemeljena zavrne.

[JEDRO]

Ker je torej pritožba zoper sklep pritožbenega sodišča izključena po samem zakonu, je sodišče prve stopnje pritožbo oškodovanega A. A. utemeljeno zavrglo kot nedovoljeno.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Okrajno sodišče v Mariboru je kot sodišče prve stopnje s sklepom III K 25361/2022 z dne 18. 9. 2025 na podlagi drugega odstavka 375. člena Zakona o kazenskem postopku (v nadaljevanju ZKP) v zvezi s 390. in 429. členom ZKP pritožbo oškodovanega A. A. zoper sklep Višjega sodišča v Mariboru IV Kp 25361/2022 z dne 12. 8. 2025 kot nedovoljeno zavrglo.

2. Sklep sodišča prve stopnje s pritožbo izpodbija oškodovani A. A., sicer brez izrecne navedbe pritožbenega razloga, s predlogom pritožbenemu sodišču, da (med ostalim) upošteva pravico do pritožbe, ki je z Ustavo Republike Slovenije vsakomur zagotovljena pravica. Prav tako predlaga, da pritožbeno sodišče obdolženega B. B. obsodi, saj je priznal v postopku na sodišču, da je dolžnik in si je od njega izposodil finančna sredstva, kar dodatno potrjuje tudi dokumentacija. Iz vsebine obširnega pritožbenega izvajanja smiselno izhaja predlog oškodovanca po razveljavitvi pritožbeno izpodbijanega sklepa.

3. Pritožba ni utemeljena.

4. Pravilni so zaključki sodišča prve stopnje, da ZKP ne pozna pritožbe zoper sklep sodišča druge stopnje. Določbe 398. člena ZKP o pritožbi na Vrhovno sodišče veljajo samo za sodbo sodišča druge stopnje, pritožbi na Vrhovno sodišče veljajo samo za sodbo pritožbenega sodišča v taksativno naštetih primerih, medtem ko možnost pritožbe zoper sklep pritožbenega sodišča ni predvidena niti v določbah 402. člena ZKP niti v kakšnih drugih določbah ZKP. Glede na navedeno, in ker je torej pritožba zoper sklep pritožbenega sodišča izključena po samem zakonu, je sodišče prve stopnje pritožbo oškodovanega A. A. utemeljeno zavrglo kot nedovoljeno.