Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Sklep III Ips 115/2005 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2007:III.IPS.115.2005 AI generated

Supreme Court allows request to annul lower court rulings on security for tax claims due to incorrect application of law.

Case Number Sklep III Ips 115/2005
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court granted the request for protection of legality, annulled both the first and second instance court decisions, and remanded the case for a new trial. The lower courts had incorrectly ruled that security for tax claims is subsidiary and can only be requested after a failed tax enforcement action. The Supreme Court determined this interpretation violated the Enforcement and Security Act and the Tax Procedure Act, which were in force at the time of the lower courts' rulings.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Zakon o izvršbi in zavarovanju; Zakon o davčnem postopku: Security for tax claims is not subsidiary; it may be requested independently of the outcome of tax enforcement proceedings.

Keywords

AI generated
security for tax claims subsidiary nature of security enforcement and security act tax procedure act protection of legality annulment of lower court decisions remittal for new trial

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Zakon o izvršbi in zavarovanju
Zakon o davčnem postopku
AI generated
VSL sklep II Cp 1528/99
Appeal allowed: Mortgage security on unregistered apartment valid under ZIZ Art. 244 and 211.
VSL sklep I Cpg 1035/2013
Appeal partially allowed regarding costs; court ruled single award applies for security proceedings and land registry order.
VSC Sodba Cp 35/2020
Appeal court reverses first instance, holding that realization of an oral property agreement does not cure its lack of written form. The plaintiff's claim for co-ownership registration is dismissed. The court ruled that realization alone is insufficient to validate an oral agreement for property transfer. The plaintiff must provide a written legal basis for acquiring ownership rights. The court emphasized that realization does not cure the formal defect of an oral agreement. The plaintiff's claim for co-ownership registration is dismissed. The court ruled that realization alone is insufficient to validate an oral agreement for property transfer. The plaintiff must provide a written legal basis for acquiring ownership rights. The court emphasized that realization does not cure the formal defect of an oral agreement.
VSK sklep Cp 800/2007
Appeal allowed; court voids land registry entry for duplicate mortgage based on agreement and notarial deeds.
VSL sklep I Ip 2960/2014
Appeal dismissed because appeal against original order was invalid; only appeal against final amended order is permitted.

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

Zahtevi za varstvo zakonitosti se ugodi, sklep sodišča druge stopnje in sklep sodišča prve stopnje se razveljavita in se zadeva vrne sodišču prve stopnje v nov postopek.

[JEDRO]

Presoja sodišč nižjih stopenj, da bi upnik lahko zavarovanje terjatve v sodnem postopku zahteval šele, če bi bila neuspešna davčna izvršba na dolžničine dohodke, terjatve in premičnine, je v nasprotju z določbami Zakona o izvršbi in zavarovanju in Zakona o davčnem postopku, ki sta veljala v času odločanja sodišča prve stopnje.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Upnik je zoper dolžnico, takrat samostojno podjetnico, vložil predlog za zavarovanje denarnih terjatev, ki so izhajale iz izvršljivih seznamov zaostalih davčnih obveznosti. Predlagal je vknjižbo zastavne pravice na nepremičnini, katere solastnica je bil dolžnica.

2. Sodišče prve stopnje je presodilo, da je sodno zavarovanje davčnih terjatev subsidiarne narave. Do njega lahko upnik pride le, če je neuspešna davčna izvršba. Ker je bila ta v danem primeru še v teku, je predlog za zavarovanje zavrnilo.

3. Upnik je zoper sklep sodišča prve stopnje vložil pritožbo, ki jo je sodišče druge stopnje zavrnilo in potrdilo sklep sodišča prve stopnje.

4. Vrhovno državno tožilstvo Republike Slovenije je zaradi zmotne uporabe materialnega prava zoper sklep sodišča druge stopnje vložilo zahtevo za varstvo zakonitosti. Meni, da sodišči nižjih stopenj nista uporabili