Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Sklep I Ips 343/2006 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2006:I.IPS.343.2006 AI generated

Defense lawyer's ex officio request for protection of legality is dismissed due to lack of special authorization.

Case Number Sklep I Ips 343/2006
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 defense lawyer's request for protection of legality filed ex officio. The defendant had already been convicted and sentenced, and the lawyer attempted to file the request without specific authorization. The court ruled that a defense lawyer cannot file this extraordinary remedy against the defendant's will unless they hold a special mandate, which was absent in this case.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

2. odstavek 423. člena ZKP; A defense lawyer acting ex officio without a special mandate is not entitled to file a request for protection of legality against the defendant's will.

Keywords

AI generated
protection of legality defense lawyer mandate ex officio action special authorization extraordinary remedy ZKP 423 defendant's will

Cited Legislation

AI generated
2. odstavek 423. člena ZKP
AI generated
Sodba I Ips 136/2008
Supreme Court voids criminal judgment for failure to examine police application in home search legality.
Sodba I Ips 165/2000
Supreme Court dismisses appeal claiming drug count error is procedural violation, ruling it is factual error.
Sodba I Ips 185/2007
Supreme Court dismisses appeal on firearm possession, ruling it covers all listed weapon types.
VSK sklep Kp 173/2007
Appeal allowed; first-instance judgment quashed due to improper evidence exclusion and procedural errors.
Sodba I Ips 173/99
Supreme Court dismisses appeal against conviction, ruling secret police measures were lawful based on pre-existing 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 zagovornika obsojenega B.U. za varstvo zakonitosti se zavrže.

[JEDRO]

Zagovornik po uradni dolžnosti brez posebnega pooblastila ni upravičen do vložitve zahteve za varstvo zakonitosti.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

B.U. je bil z uvodoma navedenima sodbama pravnomočno spoznan za krivega storitve kaznivega dejanja neupravičene proizvodnje in prometa z mamili po 1. odstavku 196. člena KZ. Izrečena mu je bila enotna kazen 8 mesecev zapora.

Zoper navedeno pravnomočno sodno odločbo je vložil odvetnik J.V., ki je obsojenca zagovarjal v postopku po uradni dolžnosti zahtevo za varstvo zakonitosti. Po vložitvi zahteve je Vrhovno sodišče prejelo dne 20.10.2006 obsojenčev umik zahteve. Ker zagovornik ne more vložiti zahteve za varstvo zakonitosti proti obdolženčevi volji (izjema velja le za zahtevo v korist mladoletnika) jo je Vrhovno sodišče v skladu z 2. odstavkom 423. člena ZKP zavrglo kot nedovoljeno. Sicer pa tudi zagovornik po uradni dolžnosti tega izrednega pravnega sredstva brez posebnega pooblastila (podanega tudi že po preteku roka za vložitev zahteve) ni upravičen do vložitve tega izrednega pravnega sredstva.