Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Sklep IV Ips 38/2007 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2007:IV.IPS.38.2007 AI generated

Defense lawyer's request for legality protection in traffic offense dismissed as only prosecutor may file it.

Case Number Sklep IV Ips 38/2007
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 legality protection against a final traffic offense judgment. The defendant had been fined and had their driving license suspended for a traffic violation, and the defense lawyer attempted to file the request directly. The court ruled that only the public prosecutor has the statutory right to file such a request, while the defendant or their lawyer may only submit a suggestion to the prosecutor.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 169(2) of the Offenses Act; Article 423(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act: Only the public prosecutor may file a request for legality protection; the defendant or their counsel may only suggest its filing.

Keywords

AI generated
legality protection request traffic offense procedure public prosecutor authority defense lawyer rights suggestion vs filing ZP-1 Article 169 ZKP Article 423

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 169(1) of the Offenses Act
Article 169(2) of the Offenses Act
Article 423(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act
Article 171 of the Offenses Act
AI generated
VSK sodba PRp 123/2009
Appeal granted; penalty points and license suspension corrected from category B to H vehicle violation.
VSM Sklep PRp 19/2020
Appeal partially allowed: conviction reversed due to unclear confession; license suspension upheld for repeat offender.
VSK sodba PRp 30/2012
Appeal dismissed; defendant failed to prove reasonable doubt regarding traffic violation liability.
VSC Sodba PRp 198/2024
Appeal dismissed; driver's license suspension upheld due to repeated alcohol offenses and safety risks.
VSL sodba PRp 477/2010
Appeal dismissed; refusal of blood/urine test during traffic accident investigation constitutes a traffic offense under ZVCP-1. Court upholds first-instance judgment. Appeal dismissed; refusal of blood/urine test during traffic accident investigation constitutes a traffic offense under ZVCP-1. Court upholds first-instance judgment.

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 storilca D.G. za varstvo zakonitosti se zavrže.

[JEDRO]

Obdolženec oziroma druge osebe nimajo pravice vložiti zahteve za varstvo zakonitosti, lahko pa dajo pobudo državnemu tožilcu za vložitev takšne zahteve.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Okrajno sodišče v Kopru je s sodbo z dne 16.1.2007 D.G. spoznalo za odgovornega prekrška po d točki četrtega odstavka 130. člena ZVCP-1 in mu izreklo globo v znesku 500,75 EUR ter stransko sankcijo 18 kazenskih točk s prenehanjem veljavnosti vozniškega dovoljenja za prekršek, storjen z motornim vozilom B kategorije. Višje sodišče v Kopru je zavrnilo pritožbo obdolženca in potrdilo sodbo sodišča prve stopnje.

Zoper pravnomočno sodbo je obdolženčev zagovornik 4.6.2007 vložil zahtevo za varstvo zakonitosti iz razlogov 1. odstavka 169. člena Zakona o prekrških (ZP-1) ter Vrhovnemu sodišču Republike Slovenije predlaga, da izpodbijano sodbo razveljavi.

Po določbi drugega odstavka 169. člena ZP-1 lahko vloži zahtevo za varstvo zakonitosti le državni tožilec, in sicer po uradni dolžnosti ali na pobudo osebe, ki ima pravico do pritožbe zoper sodbo o prekršku sodišča prve stopnje. Obdolženec oziroma druge osebe torej nimajo pravice vložiti zahteve za varstvo zakonitosti, lahko pa dajo pobudo državnemu tožilcu za vložitev takšne zahteve.

V konkretnem postopku je zahtevo za varstvo zakonitosti vložil zagovornik obdolženega, ki po citirani določbi ni imel te pravice. Glede na navedeno je Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije na podlagi določbe drugega odstavka 423. člena Zakona o kazenskem postopku (ZKP) v zvezi s 171. členom ZP-1 zahtevo zagovornika storilca D.G. za varstvo zakonitosti zavrglo.