Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSL sklep Kp 1011/93 ECLI:SI:VSLJ:1993:KP.1011.93 AI generated

Appeal dismissed: No new facts or evidence provided to justify reopening a concluded criminal proceeding.

Case Number VSL sklep Kp 1011/93
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 appellant's request to reopen a finalized criminal proceeding, citing the lack of new facts or evidence. The appellant argued for procedural renewal based on previously submitted witness testimony and other evidence already considered by the first-instance court. The court ruled that since the appellant offered no new grounds for leniency or acquittal, the statutory requirements for reopening the case were not met.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 404, paragraph 4, point 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act; Article 233 of the Criminal Procedure Act: A criminal proceeding may be reopened in favor of the convicted person only if new facts or new evidence are presented that could independently or in conjunction with previous evidence lead to their acquittal or a lighter sentence.

Keywords

AI generated
reopening criminal proceedings new facts requirement new evidence standard appellate review procedural renewal

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 404, paragraph 4, point 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act
Article 233 of the Criminal Procedure Act
AI generated
Sodba I Ips 22033/2010-27
Supreme Court dismisses appeal for protection of legality regarding new evidence in closed criminal proceedings. The court rules that evidence proposed during the trial is not new under Article 410 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The appeal is rejected because the evidence was already considered and rejected before the judgment became final. The court clarifies that such evidence does not qualify for reopening proceedings under Article 410 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The appeal is dismissed because the evidence was already considered and rejected before the judgment became final. The court clarifies that such evidence does not qualify for reopening proceedings under Article 410 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The appeal is dismissed because the evidence was already considered and rejected before the judgment became final. The court clarifies that such evidence does not qualify for reopening proceedings under Article 410 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
VSL Sklep VII Kp 6405/2017
Appeal dismissed; new trial requires new evidence, not just a final judgment from a prior case.
Sodba I Ips 164/2003
Appeal court allows request for retrial when a judge who previously convicted the defendant decides on the request.
Sodba I Ips 394/2006
Supreme Court dismisses appeal against rejection of retrial request, limiting scope to retrial proceedings violations only.
VSL sklep I Kp 317/2005
Appeal dismissed; retrial for new facts required, not mere legal re-evaluation.

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 obs. se zavrne kot neutemeljena.

[JEDRO]

Obsojenec ni navedel nobenih novih dejstev ali predložil novih dokazov, ki bi utegnili sami zase ali v zvezi s prejšnjimi dokazi povzročiti njegovo oprostitev ali njegovo obsodbo po milejšem zakonu, saj je v zahtevi za obnovo kazenskega postopka predlagal dokaze, katere je sodišče že v rednem sojenju deloma izvedlo in jih ocenilo, glede dokazov, ki jih ni izvedlo in jih je zavrnilo, pa je bilo že v sodbi sodišča prve stopnje pojasnjeno, zakaj izvedba že tedaj predlaganih dokazov ni bila potrebna.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Z izpodbijanim sklepom je sodišče prve stopnje odločilo, da se zavrže obsojenčeva zahteva za obnovo kazenskega postopka, pravnomočno končanega s sodbo temeljnega sodišča v zvezi s sodbo višjega sodišča.

Proti sklepu se je pritožil obsojenec. Iz vsebine pritožbe izhaja, da uveljavlja pritožbeni razlog zmotne in nepopolne ugotovitve dejanskega stanja, predlaga pa, da se njegovi zahtevi za obnovo kazenskega postopka ugodi.

Pritožba ni utemeljena.

V izpodbijanem sklepu je že pravilno pojasnjeno, da je iz razloga po 4. točki I. odstavka 404. člena ZKP mogoča obnova kazenskega postopka v korist obsojenca le v primeru, če se navedejo nova dejstva ali predložijo novi dokazi, ki utegnejo sami zase ali v zvezi s prejšnjimi dokazi povzročiti oprostitev tistega, ki je bil obsojen, ali pa njegovo obsodbo po milejšem zakonu. V zahtevi za obnovo kazenskega postopka pa obsojenec ni navedel nikakršnih novih dejstev, pač pa le ponavlja zagovor, pa tudi ne nobenih novih dokazov. Dokaze, ki jih predlaga v zahtevi za obnovo kazenskega postopka je namreč predlagal že v rednem sojenju in tudi v pritožbi zoper sodbo. Tako je bila B. H. že zaslišana kot priča in je bila njena izpovedba že ocenjena, prav tako pa je bilo v razlogih sodbe sodišča prve stopnje pojasnjeno, zakaj ni bilo potrebe po zaslišanju priče B. S. in M. H.

Pritožbeno sodišče je zato pritožbo obsojenca zavrnilo kot neutemeljeno, saj obsojenec tudi v pritožbi ne navaja nobenih takih okoliščin in tudi ne dokazov, na podlagi katerih bi prišla v poštev obnova kazenskega postopka.