Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSC sklep Kp 385/2000 ECLI:SI:VSCE:2000:KP.385.2000 AI generated

Appeal dismissed as withdrawn when defendant retracted appeal notice after first instance judgment was finalized.

Case Number VSC sklep Kp 385/2000
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Court of Appeal dismissed the defendant's appeal as inadmissible because the defense counsel withdrew the appeal notice before the first-instance judgment was finalized. Although the defendant later reinstated the appeal notice, the court held that a withdrawal of an appeal notice constitutes a simultaneous withdrawal of the appeal itself, which cannot be retracted. Consequently, the court ruled that the appeal was invalid under the Criminal Procedure Act, despite the first instance court having initially accepted it.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

II. odstavek 368. člen Zakona o kazenskem postopku; I. odstavek 388. člen Zakona o kazenskem postopku: When a defendant withdraws an appeal notice, they simultaneously withdraw the appeal, and this withdrawal cannot be retracted even if the notice was reinstated within the deadline.

Keywords

AI generated
withdrawal of appeal notice inadmissible appeal Criminal Procedure Act retraction of withdrawal defense counsel authority

Cited Legislation

AI generated
II. odstavek 368. člen Zakona o kazenskem postopku
I. odstavek 388. člen Zakona o kazenskem postopku
AI generated
VSC Sklep III Cpg 110/2022
Appeal allowed; first-instance court failed to determine valid legal representative before ruling on withdrawal of appeal.
VSL sklep I Cp 3628/2010
Appeal allowed; appeal fee order dismissed due to unclear service to third party with same counsel.
VSL sklep II Cpg 1263/2015
Appeal dismissed; court upheld first instance ruling that withdrawal of appeal was valid due to unpaid court fees. The appeal was rejected because the defendant failed to pay court fees within the deadline, and the court correctly deemed the appeal notice withdrawn. The court rejected the defendant's attempt to overturn the presumption of service based on the delivery certificate, as such presumptions cannot be easily rebutted without substantial evidence. The decision emphasizes that procedural deadlines for fee payment are strict and that the burden of proof lies with the party claiming non-service. The court ruled that the first instance court acted correctly in finding the appeal notice withdrawn due to non-payment. The appeal was dismissed because the defendant could not provide sufficient evidence to challenge the validity of the service notice. The court held that the presumption of service via delivery certificate stands unless strongly contradicted by evidence. The defendant's claim of non-service was rejected due to lack of specific factual arguments and supporting documentation. The court confirmed that the first instance court's decision to treat the appeal as withdrawn was legally sound. The appeal was dismissed because the defendant failed to meet the statutory requirements for challenging the service of the appeal notice.
VSRS Sklep VIII Ips 270/2016
Supreme Court allows appeal against dismissal due to late court fee payment made to wrong court account.
VSM sklep I Cpg 295/2015
Appeal dismissed; court upheld dismissal of appeal due to unpaid court fee for notice of appeal.

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

Pritožba obtoženega A. Š. se z a v r ž e kot nedovoljena.

[JEDRO]

Če je obtoženec, ki je na razglasitvi napovedal pritožbo, pa je napoved z vlogo po zagovorniku umaknil, nato pa je v roku za napoved preklical umik napovedi in nato vložil pritožbo zoper v celoti izdelano sodbo, pritožba ni dovoljena, ker se je z umikom napovedi hkrati odpovedal tudi pritožbi. Odpoved pritožbi pa se ne more preklicati. Sodišče 2. stopnje je dolžno takšno pritožbo zavreči kot nedovoljeno.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Po razglasitvi izpodbijane sodbe dne 13. 3. 2000 je obtoženi napovedal pritožbo, kar je zabeleženo v zapisniku o glavni obravnavi s tega dne. Z vlogo z dne 15. 3. 2000 je zagovornik v njegovem imenu umaknil napoved pritožbe. S svojo vlogo z dne 16. 3. 2000 pa je obtoženi preklical umik napovedi pritožbe, pri napovedi vztrajal in ponovno napovedal pritožbo. Izpodbijana sodba je bila izdelana v celoti in vročena strankam ter zagovorniku. Zoper njo se je pravočasno pritožil obtoženi po zagovorniku zaradi kršitve kazenskega zakona ter zaradi zmotne in nepopolne ugotovitve dejanskega stanja.

Predlagal je njeno spremembo ter izdajo oprostilne sodbe,sicer pa razveljavitev in vrnitev zadeve sodišču prve stopnje v novo sojenje. Pritožba ni dovoljena. Z umikom napovedi pritožbe se je obtoženi hkrati odpovedal tudi pritožbi, kakor to določa II. odstavek 368. člena Zakona o kazenskem postopku, saj se šteje, kot da pritožba ni bila napovedana. Zato tudi umika napovedi pritožbe, enako kot umika pritožbe, ni mogoče preklicati, pa čeprav v roku za vložitev napovedi. Ker je sodišče prve stopnje štelo pritožbo za dovoljeno, je sodišče druge stopnje v skladu s I. odstavkom 388.

člena Zakona o kazenskem postopku zaradi drugačnega stališča izdalo ta sklep.