Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Sklep I Ips 54/2002 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2004:I.IPS.54.2002 AI generated

Supreme Court rejects appeal for legal protection withdrawal due to procedural lapse under Criminal Procedure Code.

Case Number Sklep I Ips 54/2002
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court of Slovenia rejected the defendant's request for legal protection after the defense attorney withdrew the appeal on June 7, 2004. The original conviction for negligent traffic accident occurred in January 2002, and the withdrawal was submitted via letter to the court. The court dismissed the request by analogously applying Article 390 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Article 423(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, ruling that the withdrawal rendered the appeal inadmissible.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 390 of the Criminal Procedure Code; Article 423(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act: A withdrawal of a request for legal protection renders the appeal inadmissible if submitted after the deadline for filing the appeal has expired.

Keywords

AI generated
withdrawal of appeal legal protection request procedural deadline Criminal Procedure Code inadmissible appeal defense attorney withdrawal supreme court ruling

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 390 of the Criminal Procedure Code
Article 423(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act

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

Zahteva zagovornika obsojenega S.S. za varstvo zakonitosti se zavrže.

[JEDRO]

Umaknjena zahteva za varstvo zakonitosti se zavrže.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Z uvodoma navedeno pravnomočno sodbo je bil obsojeni S.S. spoznan za krivega kaznivega dejanja povzročitve prometne nesreče iz malomarnosti po 1. odstavku 325. člena KZ ter mu je bila izrečena kazen šest mesecev zapora. Obsojenčev zagovornik, odvetnik D.B. iz M., je dne 30.1.2002 vložil zahtevo za varstvo zakonitosti.

Obsojenčev zagovornik je z dopisom z dne 7.6.2004 zahtevo za varstvo zakonitosti umaknil. Vrhovno sodišče je z analogno uporabo 390. člena ZKP, po 2. odstavku 423. člena Zakona o kazenskem postopku (ZKP)

zahtevo za varstvo zakonitosti zavrglo.