Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
SS-1356/2010-OLR ECLI:DK:OLR:2022:SS0000000508 AI generated

Appeal allowed despite late filing due to reasonable delay in postal transmission of documents.

Case Number SS-1356/2010-OLR
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Denmark (DK)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The court allowed the defendant's appeal against a first-instance acquittal, which was filed after the statutory deadline. Although the appeal notice arrived at the prosecution office on April 23, 2010, exceeding the April 22 deadline, the court found the delay attributable to standard postal transmission times. Consequently, the appeal was deemed timely under the relevant procedural law, and the acquittal was set aside.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Retsplejeloven § 908, stk. 2; § 910, stk. 2: An appeal filed after the statutory deadline is admissible if the delay is caused by circumstances beyond the appellant's control, such as standard postal transmission times, provided the notice would have arrived on time under normal conditions.

Keywords

AI generated
criminal appeal procedure statutory time limit postal transmission delay reasonable excuse procedural admissibility acquittal appeal criminal court jurisdiction

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Retsplejeloven § 908, stk. 2
retsplejeloven § 908, stk. 2.
Retsplejeloven § 910, stk. 2
AI generated
SS-483/2009-OLR
Appeal dismissed because prosecution failed to meet strict deadline for filing appeal against defendant.
SS-1778/2019-OLR
Appeal admitted despite late filing because simplified digital service did not meet personal service requirement for a mentally impaired defendant.
SS-3341/2017-OLR
Appeal dismissed because the defendant missed the statutory deadline and the prosecutor's prior non-objection was insufficient to extend it.
SS-3537/2012-OLR
Appeal dismissed because telephone submission of appeal was valid under statutory analogy despite lack of explicit guidance.
SS-2749/2008-VLR
Appeal dismissed because prosecution failed to prove timely mailing of both recommended and regular copies.

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

Den af tiltalte iværksatte anke tillades

[DOKUMENT] Afgørelse (1 sider) UDSKRIFT AF ØSTRE LANDSRETS DOMBOG ____________ KENDELSE

Afsagt den 11. maj 2010 af Østre Landsrets 11. afdeling (landsdommerne Karsten Bo Knudsen, Ole Græsbøll Olesen og Anne Louise Bormann).

11. afd. a.s. nr. S-1356-10: Anklagemyndigheden mod Tiltalte

( CPR nr. )

Holbæk Rets dom af 8. april 2010 (60-3834/2009) er anket af Tiltalte til frifindelse.

Anklagemyndigheden har principalt påstået anken afvist som for sent fremsat, idet ankemeddelelsen først er modtaget hos anklagemyndigheden den 23. april 2010.

Den indankede dom er afsagt den 8. april 2010, hvor tiltalte var til stede, og modtog ankevejledning. Ankefristen udløb derfor den 22. april 2010. Tiltaltes ankemeddelelse skulle således have været modtaget af anklagemyndigheden eller byretten senest denne dato, jf. retsplejeloven § 908, stk. 2. Tiltaltes ankemeddelelse er modtaget i landsretten den

21. april 2010. Hvis ankemeddelelsen var blevet videresendt til statsadvokaten samme dag, ville ankemeddelelsen ved sædvanlig postforsendelse være modtaget hos statsadvokaten den 22. april 2010 og dermed rettidigt. Tiltaltes anke bør derfor tillades, jf. retsplejelovens § 910, stk. 2.

Thi bestemmes:

Den af Tiltalte iværksatte anke tillades.