Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Sklep I Ips 298/2006 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2007:I.IPS.298.2006 AI generated

Defense counsel's request for legal protection against a final ruling on their own rights is dismissed as inadmissible.

Case Number Sklep I Ips 298/2006
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Inadmissible
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court of Slovenia dismissed defense counsel M.P.'s request for legal protection against a final ruling that penalized him for verbally attacking the court. The defense argued the ruling violated Article 420 of the Criminal Procedure Act, but the court held that counsel cannot file such requests against final decisions affecting only their own rights. Consequently, the request was rejected as inadmissible under Article 423 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

1. and 2. paragraphs of Article 421 of the Criminal Procedure Act; 2. paragraph of Article 423 of the Criminal Procedure Act: A defense counsel cannot file a request for legal protection against a final court decision that concerns exclusively their own rights or interests.

Keywords

AI generated
defense counsel legal protection request final court decision own rights Criminal Procedure Act inadmissible request procedural standing

Cited Legislation

AI generated
1. paragraph of Article 78 of the Criminal Procedure Act
1. and 2. paragraphs of Article 421 of the Criminal Procedure Act
2. paragraph of Article 423 of the Criminal Procedure Act
AI generated
VSRS Sodba I Ips 35850/2016-66
Appeal for legal protection dismissed due to failure to exhaust material remedies regarding identification procedure.
VSM Sklep II Kp 20182/2013
Appeal court vacates lawyer's fine for non-attendance due to illness and lack of malicious delay evidence.
VSM Sklep IV Kp 6426/2012
Court quashes first-instance ruling on victim's interest to continue prosecution due to improper service of notice.
VSM Sklep II Kp 92097/2023
Appeal court quashes lawyer's fine for delaying trial, ruling subjective intent to delay is required under ZKP Art. 140.
Sklep I Ips 78/2006
Supreme Court dismisses private prosecutor's appeal as they lack standing under ZKP Art. 421.1.

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 odvetnika M.P. za varstvo zakonitosti se zavrže.

[JEDRO]

Zagovornik ne more vložiti zahteve za varstvo zakonitosti zoper pravnomočne sodne odločbe, ki zadevajo izključno njegove pravice ali interese.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Sodišče prve stopnje je z navedenim sklepom odvetnika M.P., substituta odvetnika J.M., ki je v postopku zagovarjal obsojenega M.G., na podlagi 1. odstavka 78. člena Zakona o kazenskem postopku (ZKP) zaradi žalitve sodišča kaznovalo z denarno kaznijo 200.000,00 SIT. Višje sodišče v Mariboru je pritožbo odvetnika M.P. zoper navedeni sklep zavrnilo kot neutemeljeno.

Odvetnik M.P. je zoper navedeni pravnomočni sklep vložil zahtevo za varstvo zakonitosti "iz razlogov po 420. členu ZKP" in predlagal, da Vrhovno sodišče "izpodbijani sklep razveljavi in denarno kazen odpravi".

Zahteva za varstvo zakonitosti ni dovoljena.

Po določbah 1. in 2. odstavka 421. člena ZKP sme državni tožilec Republike Slovenije vložiti zahtevo za varstvo zakonitosti v korist in v škodo obdolženca, obdolženec, zagovornik, po obdolženčevi smrti pa tudi osebe, naštete v 2. odstavku 367. člena ZKP, pa zgolj v korist obdolženca. Iz navedenih določb jasno izhaja, da zagovornik, čeprav je procesni udeleženec, zahteve za varstvo zakonitosti ne more vložiti zoper pravnomočne sodne odločbe, ki zadevajo izključno njegove pravice ali interese.

V obravnavanem primeru je zahtevo za varstvo zakonitosti vložil odvetnik M.P. zoper pravnomočni sklep, s katerim je bil kaznovan z denarno kaznijo, ker je na glavni obravnavi ustno žalil sodišče. Ker zagovornik do vložitve zahteve za varstvo zakonitosti v svojo korist glede na povedano ni upravičen (1. odstavek 421. člena ZKP), jo je Vrhovno sodišče zavrglo kot nedovoljeno (2. odstavek 423. člena ZKP).