Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSL Sklep Cst 37/2020 ECLI:SI:VSLJ:2020:CST.37.2020 AI generated

Appeal dismissed for non-compliance; unsigned appeal rejected as incomplete under ZPP and ZFPPIPP rules.

Case Number VSL Sklep Cst 37/2020
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Higher Court dismissed the appeal because the appellant failed to sign the document, rendering it incomplete. The appellant argued for the application of ZPP rules regarding incomplete submissions, but the court held that appeal procedures require a signature. Consequently, the court ruled that the unsigned appeal was procedurally invalid and could not be processed.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

343. odst. 3 ZPP; 1. točka 365. ZPP; 121. odst. 1 ZFPPIPP: An appeal must be signed to be valid; failure to sign renders the appeal incomplete and inadmissible, excluding the application of ZPP rules for incomplete submissions.

Keywords

AI generated
unsigned appeal incomplete appeal ZPP appeal rules ZFPPIPP procedure procedural dismissal

Cited Legislation

AI generated
343. odst. 3 ZPP
1. točka 365. ZPP
121. odst. 1 ZFPPIPP
AI generated
VSL Sklep I Cp 621/2020
Court dismisses appeal for missing court fee waiver request deadline due to lack of proof for excusable delay.
VSL Sklep II Cp 1255/2018
Appeal dismissed because the applicant failed to complete the tax waiver application after court summons.
VSL Sklep I Cp 2746/2017
Appeal dismissed; failure to comply with court instruction for tax waiver leads to rejection under ZPP. Appeal dismissed; failure to comply with court instruction for tax waiver leads to rejection under ZPP.
Sklep I Up 180/2009
Appeal dismissed; failure to submit sworn asset statement precludes tax waiver under ZST-1.
VSL Sklep I Cp 803/2017
Appeal dismissed; applicant failed to include required family consent for court to verify assets under ZST-1C.

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 se zavrže.

[JEDRO]

Upnik se je zoper sklep pritožil, ker pa pritožbe ni podpisal, je višje sodišče pritožbo kot nepopolno zavrglo.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Sodišče prve stopnje je z izpodbijanim sklepom zavrglo predlog upnik za oprostitev plačila sodne takse z dne 8. 5. 2019, ker upnik predloga za oprostitev plačila sodnih taks ni dopolnil, kot ga je sodišče pozvalo s sklepom z dne 9. 10. 2019.

2. Upnik se je zoper sklep pritožil.

3. Pritožba ni dovoljena.

4. Upnik se je zoper sklep z dne 14. 11. 2019 pritožil, ker pa pritožbe ni podpisal, je višje sodišče pritožbo kot nepopolno zavrglo. V postopku s pritožbo se ne uporabljajo določbe 108. člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku – ZPP o vračanju nepopolnih vlog v dopolnitev (336. člen ZPP v zvezi s prvim odstavkom 121. člena Zakona o finančnem poslovanju, postopkih zaradi insolventnosti in prisilnem prenehanju – ZFPPIPP). Da mora biti pritožba podpisana ter kakšne so posledice, če ni, je bil pritožnik poučen v pravnem pouku izpodbijanega sklepa. Sklep višjega sodišča temelji na tretjem odstavku 343. člena ZPP v zvezi s 1. točko 365. člena ZPP in prvim odstavkom 121. člena ZFPPIPP.

Ta pisni odpravek se ujema z elektronskim izvirnikom sklepa.