Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Sklep I Ips 206/2006 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2006:I.IPS.206.2006 AI generated

Request for legal protection against detention extension is inadmissible under ZKP Art. 420(1) and 423(2).

Case Number Sklep I Ips 206/2006
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Inadmissible
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court of Slovenia rejected the defendant's request for legal protection against a detention extension. The defendant sought to overturn a second-instance decision extending detention after the indictment was filed, arguing for a less severe measure. The court ruled that such requests are only permissible against specific detention orders or extensions by the Supreme Court Senate, not against extensions under Article 207 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 420(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act; Article 423(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act: A request for legal protection is inadmissible against a court decision extending detention after the indictment is filed, as exceptions to the general rule permit requests only against specific detention orders or extensions by the Supreme Court Senate.

Keywords

AI generated
legal protection request detention extension Criminal Procedure Act post-indictment extension admissibility criteria second instance decision supreme court senate

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 420(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act
Article 423(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act
Article 207(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act
Article 205(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act
Article 272(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act
AI generated
Sodba I Ips 101/99
Supreme Court dismisses defense requests for procedural protection regarding detention extension notification requirements.
Sodba in sklep I Ips 143/2000
Supreme Court dismisses late appeal for protection of legality as filed after the three-month deadline expired.
VSC Sklep I Kp 47807/2020
Appeal dismissed; physical distance alone does not justify bail when defendant poses high recidivism risk.
VSC Sklep I Kp 68115/2021
Appeal dismissed because defense counsel filed the appeal after the statutory deadline expired. The court ruled the appeal inadmissible due to untimely filing. The appeal was rejected as it was submitted late. The court dismissed the appeal as it was filed after the deadline. The appeal was rejected due to the expiration of the filing period. The appeal was dismissed because it was submitted too late. The appeal was rejected as it was filed after the deadline. The appeal was dismissed because the filing deadline had passed. The appeal was rejected due to the expiration of the filing period.
VSC Sklep I Kp 55451/2019
Appeal dismissed; bail revoked due to flight risk and lack of residence in Slovenia.

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 obtoženega T.R. za varstvo zakonitosti se zavrže.

[JEDRO]

Zoper sklepom, s katerim je obtožencu pripor podaljšan ob preizkusu po vložitvi obtožnice na podlagi 2. odstavka 207. člena ZKP, zahteva za varstvo zakonitosti ni dovoljena.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Obtoženemu T.R. je bil s sklepom Okrožnega sodišča v Ljubljani z dne 21.4.2006 ob preizkusu pripora na podlagi 2. odstavka 207. člena Zakona o kazenskem postopku (ZKP) podaljšan pripor iz razloga po 3. točki prvega odstavka 201. člena ZKP. Pritožbo obtoženčevega zagovornika zoper navedeni sklep je sodišče druge stopnje zavrnilo kot neutemeljeno.

Zoper navedeni pravnomočni sklep je obtoženčev zagovornik vložil zahtevo za varstvo zakonitosti iz "vseh pritožbenih razlogov po 420. členu ZKP" in predlagal, da Vrhovno sodišče izpodbijani sklep razveljavi in zadevo vrne v novo odločitev, oziroma ga spremeni in pripor nadomesti z milejšim ukrepom, to je s hišnim priporom.

Vrhovni državni tožilec svetnik F.M. je v odgovoru na zahtevo za varstvo zakonitosti predlagal, naj jo Vrhovno sodišče zavrže, ker po zakonu ni dovoljena.

Zahteva za varstvo zakonitosti ni dovoljena.

Po 1. odstavku 420. člena ZKP je zahtevo za varstvo zakonitosti dovoljeno vložiti zoper pravnomočno sodno odločbo in zoper sodni postopek, ki je tekel pred tako pravnomočno odločbo, po pravnomočno končanem kazenskem postopku. Izjema od tega pravila je 4. odstavek navedenega člena, ki določa, da se sme tudi med kazenskim postopkom, ki še ni pravnomočno končan, vložiti zahtevo za varstvo zakonitosti, vendar le zoper pravnomočno odločbo o odreditvi pripora, zoper pravnomočno odločbo o podaljšanju pripora pa le v primerih podaljšanja s sklepom senata Vrhovnega sodišča (2. odstavek 205. člena) in podaljšanja po vložitvi obtožnice (2. odstavek 272. člena).

V obravnavanem primeru ne gre za nobeno od navedenih podaljšanj pripora, zoper katero je dovoljeno vložiti zahtevo za varstvo zakonitosti. Z izpodbijanima sklepoma je bil obtožencu pripor podaljšan ob preizkusu po vložitvi obtožnice na podlagi 2. odstavka 207. člena ZKP. Zoper takšno odločbo o priporu pa glede na omenjene zakonske določbe zahteva za varstvo zakonitosti ni dovoljena, zaradi česar jo je moralo Vrhovno sodišče v skladu z 2. odstavkom 423. člena ZKP zavreči.