Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSM Sklep IV Kp 15312/2023 ECLI:SI:VSMB:2025:IV.KP.15312.2023 AI generated

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.

Case Number VSM Sklep IV Kp 15312/2023
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The High Court in Mariboru dismissed the appeal against the first-instance court's rejection of a legality protection request filed by the victim acting as prosecutor. The victim argued against the first-instance conclusions but failed to provide specific grounds, while the opposing party contended that only specific entities have standing under the Criminal Procedure Act. The court ruled that the victim lacks the statutory right to file such a request, as the list of eligible applicants is narrower than that for appeals, rendering the request inadmissible.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 421, paragraph 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act; Article 422, paragraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act: Only the supreme prosecutor, the accused, and their defender (or heirs in case of death) may file a request for legality protection; a victim acting as prosecutor does not possess standing to file such a request.

Keywords

AI generated
Criminal Procedure Act legality protection request standing to appeal victim as prosecutor inadmissible request procedural standing ZKP Article 421

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 421, paragraph 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act
Article 422, paragraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act
Article 402, paragraph 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act
Article 367, paragraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act
AI generated
VSM Sklep IV Kp 9439/2018
Appeal dismissed because victim filed complaint after expiration of non-extendable appeal deadline.
VSM Sklep IV Kp 25361/2022
Criminal appeal against a High Court ruling is dismissed as inadmissible under the Criminal Procedure Act.
VSM sklep IV Kp 18591/2010
Appeal against first instance rejection of indictment for alleged violation of impartial trial rights is dismissed.
VDSS Sklep Pdp 25/2025
Appeal allowed; employee has legal interest in lawful transfer after job elimination and failed transfer order.
Sklep I Up 418/2008
Appeal allowed; court held procedural rules of Civil Procedure Act apply to administrative court jurisdiction rulings absent specific law.

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 oškodovanke kot tožilke A. A. se kot neutemeljena zavrne.

[JEDRO]

Ker je krog upravičencev do vložitve zahteve za varstvo zakonitosti ožji od kroga upravičencev do vložitve pritožbe in oškodovanec kot tožilec pravice do vložitve tega izrednega pravnega sredstva nima, je zato prvostopenjsko sodišče skladno z določbo drugega odstavka 422. člena ZKP ravnalo pravilno, ko je zahtevo oškodovanke kot tožilke A. A. z dne 24. 1. 2025 zavrglo kot nedovoljeno.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Okrajno sodišče na Ptuju (v nadaljevanju sodišče prve stopnje) je s sklepom I K 15312/2023 z dne 17. 4. 2025 kot nedovoljeno zavrglo zahtevo za varstvo zakonitosti, ki jo je oškodovanka kot tožilka A. A. dne 24. 1. 2025 vložila zoper sklep sodišča prve stopnje I K 15312/2023 z dne 29. 2. 2024 v zvezi s sklepom Višjega sodišča v Mariboru IV Kp 15312/2023 z dne 9. 10. 2024.

2. Sklep sodišča prve stopnje z laično pritožbo izpodbija oškodovanka kot tožilka, sicer brez izrecne opredelitve pritožbenega razloga, smiselno zaradi nestrinjanja s prvostopenjsko sprejetimi zaključki. Izrecnega pritožbenega predloga ne podaja.

3. Pritožba ni utemeljena.

4. Pravilni so zaključki sodišča prve stopnje, da oškodovanec kot tožilec ni naveden med tistimi, ki lahko na podlagi prvega odstavka 421. člena Zakona o kazenskem postopku (v nadaljevanju ZKP) vložijo zahtevo za varstvo zakonitosti. Na temelju določbe prvega odstavka 421. člena ZKP smejo namreč zahtevo za varstvo zakonitosti vložiti (le) vrhovni državni tožilec, obdolženi in zagovornik, po obdolženčevi smrti pa v njegovo korist tudi osebe iz drugega odstavka 367. člena ZKP. Ker je krog upravičencev do vložitve zahteve za varstvo zakonitosti ožji od kroga upravičencev do vložitve pritožbe in oškodovanec kot tožilec pravice do vložitve tega izrednega pravnega sredstva nima, je zato prvostopenjsko sodišče skladno z določbo drugega odstavka 422. člena ZKP ravnalo pravilno, ko je zahtevo oškodovanke kot tožilke A. A. z dne 24. 1. 2025 zavrglo kot nedovoljeno. Vso pritožbeno izvajanje, s katerim pritožnica izraža nestrinjanje s prvostopenjsko odločitvijo, se zatorej pokaže kot brezpredmetno, saj na pravilno in zakonito sprejete pravne in dejanske zaključke ne more vplivati.

5. Ker je bilo ob preizkusu izpodbijanega sklepa in pritožbenih navedb ugotoviti, da razlogi, s katerimi oškodovanka kot tožilka A. A. izpodbija sklep sodišča prve stopnje, niso podani, je v posledici obrazloženega pritožbeno sodišče njeno pritožbo zavrnilo kot neutemeljeno (tretji odstavek 402. člena ZKP).