Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Sklep I Ips 178/2005 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2006:I.IPS.178.2005 AI generated

Supreme Court dismisses appeal for protection of legality when defendant withdraws it before ruling.

Case Number Sklep I Ips 178/2005
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 protection of legality after he withdrew it prior to a decision. Although the defense argued for annulment based on procedural violations under Articles 371 and 423 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the defendant later submitted a statement withdrawing the request due to anticipated conditional release. The court applied Article 390 of the Criminal Procedure Act by analogy to dismiss the withdrawn request as inadmissible.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

390. člen ZKP; 423. člen ZKP: A request for protection of legality is dismissed as inadmissible if the applicant withdraws it before the court renders a decision, pursuant to the analogous application of Article 390 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Keywords

AI generated
protection of legality withdrawal of appeal inadmissible request Criminal Procedure Act procedural violation conditional release supreme court ruling

Cited Legislation

AI generated
390. člen ZKP
423. člen ZKP
371. člen ZKP
AI generated
Sodba I Ips 411/2006
Supreme Court dismisses appeal for legal protection regarding expert witness impartiality due to lack of specific facts.
VSRS Sodba I Ips 40426/2017
Supreme Court dismisses appeal for protection of legality due to inconsistent reasoning and lack of fundamental procedural violation. The court found the request substantively unexhausted and rejected the claim of a fundamental breach of the Criminal Procedure Act. The Supreme Court ruled that the request was substantively unexhausted and the alleged fundamental breach of the Criminal Procedure Act was not established. The court held that the request was substantively unexhausted and the alleged fundamental breach of the Criminal Procedure Act was not established. The court held that the request was substantively unexhausted and the alleged fundamental breach of the Criminal Procedure Act was not established.
VSRS Sodba I Ips 33089/2018
Supreme Court rejects appeal claiming insufficient description of endangering life in criminal charge.
VSRS Sodba I Ips 69329/2020
Supreme Court dismisses appeal on forensic computer expert evidence, ruling it was not inadmissible due to proper conduct.
VSM Sodba III Kp 75919/2023
Appeal dismissed; sexual assault conviction upheld; prior cooperation does not compromise impartiality.

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 P.B. za varstvo zakonitosti se zavrže.

[JEDRO]

Ker je bila zahteva za varstvo zakonitosti umaknjena, jo je Vrhovno sodišče ob smiselni uporabi 390. člena ZKP zavrglo kot nedovoljeno.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

A. 1. Obsojeni P.B. je bil s sodbo Okrožnega sodišča v Celju z dne 26.3.2004 spoznan za krivega storitve kaznivega dejanja velike tatvine po 1. točki prvega odstavka 212. člena KZ in nadaljevanega kaznivega dejanja velike tatvine po 1. točki prvega odstavka 212. člena KZ, za kar mu je bila izrečena enotna kazen petih let in petih mesecev zapora. Višje sodišče v Celju je s sodbo z dne 7.12.2004 zavrnilo pritožbi okrožnega državnega tožilca in obsojenčevega zagovornika ter potrdilo sodbo sodišča prve stopnje.

2. Obsojenčev zagovornik je dne 14.4.2005 zoper uvodoma navedeni sodbi vložil zahtevo za varstvo zakonitosti zaradi bistvenih kršitev določb kazenskega postopka iz prvega in drugega odstavka 371. člena Zakona o kazenskem postopku (ZKP) in odločbe o kazenski sankciji. Predlaga, da Vrhovno sodišče razveljavi obsodilni del sodbe sodišča prve stopnje ter sodbo sodišča druge stopnje in zadevo v tem delu vrne v novo sojenje.

3. Vrhovno sodišče je dne 5.7.2006 prejelo vlogo obsojenca, v kateri je podal izjavo, da umika zahtevo za varstvo zakonitosti. Obsojeni je navedel, da umika zahtevo iz razloga, ker bo 1. septembra pogojno odpuščen s prestajanja kazni in tako ne vidi več možnosti, da bi Vrhovno sodišče njegovo "pritožbo" rešilo pred tem.

B. 4. ZKP nima izrecnih določb o tem, kako ravnati v primeru, če vložnik zahtevo za varstvo zakonitosti umakne, preden je o njej odločeno. Analogen procesni položaj je urejen v 390. členu ZKP, ki določa, da se pritožba zavrže s sklepom kot nedovoljena med drugim tudi, če se ugotovi, da je umaknjena. Zato je Vrhovno sodišče ob smiselni uporabi določbe 390. člena ZKP in v skladu z določbo drugega odstavka 423. člena ZKP zahtevo zagovornika obsojenega P.B. za varstvo zakonitosti zavrglo kot nedovoljeno.