Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Sklep I Ips 174/2006 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2006:I.IPS.174.2006 AI generated

Supreme Court dismisses request for legality protection against district court detention extension order.

Case Number Sklep I Ips 174/2006
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia rejected the defense's request for legality protection against a district court's order extending pre-trial detention. The defense argued that the extension violated procedural rules under Article 201 of the Criminal Procedure Act, but the court found no legal basis for such a request under Article 420(4) of the same act. Consequently, the request was deemed inadmissible because the specific statutory provision only permits legality protection against final detention orders or extensions by the Supreme Court itself, not intermediate district court extensions.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

4. odstavek 420. člen ZKP; 2. odstavek 423. člen ZKP: A request for legality protection against a district court's order extending pre-trial detention is inadmissible as the Criminal Procedure Act provides no legal basis for such a request against intermediate court decisions.

Keywords

AI generated
legality protection pre-trial detention extension order inadmissible request Criminal Procedure Act

Cited Legislation

AI generated
4. odstavek 420. člen ZKP
2. odstavek 423. člen ZKP
3. točka 1. odstavek 201. člen Zakona o kazenskem postopku
AI generated
Sodba XI Ips 35830/2011-113
Supreme Court dismisses request for legality protection regarding detention order based on flight risk and recidivism.
VSRS Sodba XI Ips 24167/2015-456
Supreme Court dismisses appeal against detention order due to proven risk of recidivism in organized drug trafficking.
VSRS Sodba XI Ips 26171/2015-399
Supreme Court dismisses appeal against detention extension due to lack of specific evidence of unconstitutional DNA storage. The court rejects the claim that evidence was derived from illegal DNA storage. The defense failed to concretize which specific investigative measures relied on the alleged unconstitutional DNA evidence. The court ruled that the detention extension was lawful and the appeal was unfounded. The defense failed to prove the specific link between the alleged unconstitutional DNA storage and the measures taken against the defendant. The court found the evidence sufficient to justify the detention extension. The appeal was dismissed because the defense did not provide concrete evidence of procedural violations. The court held that the detention extension was lawful and the appeal was unfounded. The defense failed to prove the specific link between the alleged unconstitutional DNA storage and the measures taken against the defendant. The court found the evidence sufficient to justify the detention extension. The appeal was dismissed because the defense did not provide concrete evidence of procedural violations. The court held that the detention extension was lawful and the appeal was unfounded. The defense failed to prove the specific link between the alleged unconstitutional DNA storage and the measures taken against the defendant. The court found the evidence sufficient to justify the detention extension. The appeal was dismissed because the defense did not provide concrete evidence of procedural violations. The court held that the detention extension was lawful and the appeal was unfounded.
VSRS Sodba XI Ips 53006/2014
Supreme Court dismisses appeal against bail order, ruling home detention insufficient for drug trafficking suspect.
VSRS Sodba XI Ips 9049/2014-336
Supreme Court dismisses request to recuse presiding judge for bail decision due to prior denial of guilty plea. The presiding judge cannot decide on the main charge if they previously denied a guilty plea, but this does not require recusal from bail decisions.

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 zagovornice obdolženega E.K. za varstvo zakonitosti se zavrže.

[JEDRO]

V 4. odstavku 420. člena ZKP ni pravne podlage za vložitev zahteve za varstvo zakonitosti zoper izpodbijana sklepa.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Dežurni preiskovalni sodnik Okrožnega sodišča v Celju je s sklepom z dne 11.3.2006 zoper obdolženega E.K., osumljenega kaznivih dejanj neupravičenega prometa z mamili po 1. in 2. odstavku 196. člena KZ, odredil pripor zaradi ponovitvene nevarnosti po 3. točki 1. odstavka 201. člena Zakona o kazenskem postopku (ZKP). Senat Okrožnega sodišča v Celju je s sklepom z dne 7.4.2006 obdolžencu pripor podaljšal iz istega pripornega razloga še za 2 meseca. Višje sodišče v Celju je z uvodoma navedenim sklepom z dne 20.4.2006 pritožbo zagovornice obdolženega E.K. zoper sklep o podaljšanju pripora zavrnilo kot neutemeljeno.

Obdolženčeva zagovornica je dne 3.5.2006 zoper navedeni sklep Višjega sodišča v Celju vložila zahtevo za varstvo zakonitosti. V zahtevi uveljavlja kršitev določb 201. člena ZKP in predlaga, da Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije pripor zoper obdolženca odpravi.

Zahteva za varstvo zakonitosti ni dovoljena.

Glede na določbo 4. odstavka 420. člena ZKP se sme zahteva za varstvo zakonitosti vložiti med kazenskim postopkom, ki ni pravnomočno končan, samo zoper pravnomočno odločbo o odreditvi pripora, zoper pravnomočno odločbo o podaljšanju pripora pa le v primeru podaljšanja s sklepom senata vrhovnega sodišča in v primeru podaljšanja po vložitvi obtožnice. Zagovornica obdolženega E.K. je zahtevo za varstvo zakonitosti vložila zoper podaljšanje pripora, o katerem je s sklepom odločil senat Okrožnega sodišča v Celju, o pritožbi zoper ta sklep pa senat Višjega sodišča v Celju. V 4. odstavku 420. člena ZKP ni pravne podlage za vložitev zahteve za varstvo zakonitosti zoper navedena sklepa.

Vrhovno sodišče je torej ugotovilo, da zahteva zagovornice obdolženega E.K. za varstvo zakonitosti ni dovoljena. V skladu z določbo 2. odstavka 423. člena ZKP je zato zahtevo kot nedovoljeno zavrglo.