Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Sklep I Ips 350/2006 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2006:I.IPS.350.2006 AI generated

Supreme Court dismisses private prosecutor's representative's request for legality protection as they lack standing under ZKP.

Case Number Sklep I Ips 350/2006
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 rejected a request for legality protection filed by the representative of a private prosecutor. The underlying criminal case involved a suspended sentence that was later commuted to a pardon, prompting the representative to challenge the final judgment. The court dismissed the request because only the state prosecutor, the accused, or their legal representatives have standing to file such requests, and the private prosecutor's representative does not possess this right.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

1. odstavek 421. člen Zakona o kazenskem postopku; 2. odstavek 422. člen Zakona o kazenskem postopku: Only the state prosecutor, the accused, or their legal representatives may file a request for legality protection; requests by other persons, such as representatives of private prosecutors, are inadmissible.

Keywords

AI generated
request for legality protection standing to file request private prosecutor representative Zakon o kazenskem postopku inadmissible procedural request criminal procedure law supreme court decision

Cited Legislation

AI generated
1. odstavek 421. člen Zakona o kazenskem postopku
2. odstavek 367. člen Zakona o kazenskem postopku
2. odstavek 422. člen Zakona o kazenskem postopku
AI generated
VSL sodba in sklep I Kp 558/2000
Court dismisses defamation charges where newspaper articles lacked specific false statements and named private prosecutor incorrectly.
Sodba IV Ips 66/2007
Court rejects prosecutor's request to reduce fine, ruling judicial courts cannot declare themselves incompetent due to changed laws.
VSL Sodba PRp 265/2020
Appeal dismissed; court held first instance correctly excluded inadmissible victim statement due to lack of privilege instruction.
Sodba I Ips 358/2004
Supreme Court rejects appeal on legal certainty regarding serious threat assessment in endangerment cases.
Sodba I Ips 63/2008
Supreme Court dismisses appeal for legal protection regarding evidence admissibility and free evaluation of evidence.

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 pooblaščenca zasebnega tožilca M.K. za varstvo zakonitosti se zavrže.

[JEDRO]

Pooblaščenec zasebnega tožilca nima pravice vložiti zahteve za varstvo zakonitosti.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Okrajno sodišče v Sevnici je obdolženi M.D. za kaznivo dejanje razžalitve po 1. odstavku 169. člena KZ z uvodoma navedenim sklepom izreklo sodni opomin. Ob reševanju pritožbe zagovornika obdolženke je Višje sodišče v Ljubljani izpodbijani sklep spremenilo tako, da je obdolženo M.D. oprostilo obtožbe.

Zoper navedeno pravnomočno sodno odločbo je vložil pooblaščenec zasebnega tožilca zahtevo za varstvo zakonitosti.

Vrhovno sodišče je zahtevo za varstvo zakonitosti zavrglo.

Po 1. odstavku 421. člena Zakona o kazenskem postopku (ZKP) smejo zahtevo za varstvo zakonitosti vložiti državni tožilec RS, obdolženec in zagovornik. Po obdolženčevi smrti pa jo smejo v njegovo korist vložiti osebe iz 2. odstavka 367. člena tega zakona (zakonec oziroma oseba, s katero živi obdolženec v zunajzakonski skupnosti, krvni sorodniki v ravni vrsti, posvojitelj, posvojenec, brat, sestra in rejnik). Ker je v konkretni kazenski zadevi vložil zahtevo za varstvo zakonitosti pooblaščenec zasebnega tožilca, torej oseba, ki te pravice nima, je Vrhovno sodišče v skladu z 2. odstavkom 422. člena ZKP zahtevo za varstvo zakonitosti zavrglo.