Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Sklep I Ips 192/2006 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2006:I.IPS.192.2006 AI generated

Supreme Court dismisses request for legal protection against detention extension under Art. 207 ZKP as inadmissible.

Case Number Sklep I Ips 192/2006
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 dismissed the defendant's request for legal protection against a final detention extension order. The defendant argued violations of defense rights and fair trial guarantees, but the court found the request inadmissible because it targeted an extension issued under Article 207 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The court ruled that such extensions do not fall within the narrow scope of legal protection requests permitted under Article 420 of the same act.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 420, paragraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act; Article 421, paragraph 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act: A request for legal protection against a detention extension is admissible only if the extension was issued pursuant to Article 272, paragraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act following the indictment, not for extensions issued under Article 207, paragraph 2.

Keywords

AI generated
legal protection request detention extension Criminal Procedure Act admissibility of appeal defendant rights

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 420, paragraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act
Article 421, paragraph 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act
Article 272, paragraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act
Article 207, paragraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act
Article 423, paragraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act
AI generated
VSRS Sodba XI Ips 12630/2016-163
Supreme Court dismisses appeal against detention order when prosecutor fails to prove facts by evidence.
Sodba I Ips 179/2008
Appeal against detention extension dismissed; court held environmental factors are valid for recidivism assessment, not discrimination.
VSRS Sodba XI Ips 24348/2016
Supreme Court dismisses appeal against bail extension due to lack of causal link between procedural error and decision legality.
Sodba I Ips 389/2008
Supreme Court dismisses appeal against bail extension, ruling legal characterization must await trial.
VSRS Sodba XI Ips 38432/2017-442
Supreme Court partially allows appeal for S.M. due to appellate court's failure to rule on recidivism risk, dismissing D.L.'s request.

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 obtoženega M.K. za varstvo zakonitosti se zavrže.

[JEDRO]

Zahtevo za varstvo zakonitosti se sme vložiti zoper pravnomočni sklep o podaljšanju pripora, ki je bil na podlagi 2. odstavka 272. člena ZKP izdan po vložitvi obtožnice, ne pa zoper sklep o podaljšanju pripora na podlagi 2. odstavka 207. člena ZKP.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Z izpodbijanim sklepom (list. št. 431-433) je Okrožno sodišče v Ljubljani na podlagi 2. odstavka 207. člena ZKP po preteku dveh mesecev po vložitvi obtožnice zoper oba obtoženca podaljšalo pripor iz razloga po 3. točki 1. odstavka 201. člena ZKP, Višje sodišče v Ljubljani pa je pritožbo obtoženega K. zoper ta sklep zavrnilo.

Zoper pravnomočna sklepa o podaljšanju pripora po preteku dveh mesecev od vložitve obtožnice je obtoženi K. sam vložil zahtevo za varstvo zakonitosti, v kateri navaja, da mu je bila kršena pravica do obrambe in pregleda spisa, do poštenega sojenja ter uveljavlja zmotno ugotovitev dejanskega stanja.

Vrhovni državni tožilec predlaga, da se zahteva obtoženega K. zavrže kot nedovoljena, ker ne gre za sklepa o podaljšanju pripora, zoper katera je po določbi 4. odstavka 420. člena ZKP izjemoma dopustna zahteva za varstvo zakonitosti.

Zahteva obtoženega M.K. za varstvo zakonitosti ni dovoljena.

Po določbah 4. odstavka in 1. odstavka 421. člena ZKP sme obdolženec vložiti zahtevo za varstvo zakonitosti le zoper pravnomočni sklep o podaljšanju pripora, ki je bil na podlagi 2. odstavka 272. člena ZKP izdan po vložitvi obtožnice, ne pa zoper sklep o podaljšanju pripora na podlagi 2. odstavka 207. člena ZKP, zoper katerega je bila vložena zahteva obtoženca v obravnavanem primeru. Vrhovno sodišče zato ugotavlja, da zahteva obtoženega M.K. za varstvo zakonitosti ni dovoljena in jo je zato treba na podlagi 2. odstavka 423. člena ZKP zavreči.