Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSM sklep Cpg 162/95 ECLI:SI:VSMB:1997:CPG.162.95 AI generated

Appeal dismissed; withdrawal of enforcement request cannot be recalled even if based on mistaken belief debt is paid.

Case Number VSM sklep Cpg 162/95
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The appellant's appeal against the first-instance court's decision to uphold a full withdrawal of an enforcement request was rejected. The appellant initially withdrew the request believing the debt was paid, but later attempted to recall this withdrawal while insisting on enforcement of interest and costs. The court held that under the Enforcement Act, withdrawal of an enforcement request is final and cannot be recalled, even if the withdrawal was based on a factual mistake regarding the debt's status.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Zakon o izvršilnem postopku (ZIP); Zakon o pravdnem postopku (ZPP): The withdrawal of an enforcement request is final and cannot be recalled, even if the withdrawal was based on a mistaken belief that the debt has been paid.

Keywords

AI generated
enforcement request withdrawal recall of withdrawal mistaken factual basis finality of withdrawal Enforcement Act ZIP

Cited Legislation

AI generated
člen 14 Zakona o izvršilnem postopku (ZIP)
člen 193 Zakona o pravdnem postopku (ZPP)
AI generated
VDSS Sklep Pdp 842/2018
Partial dismissal of appeal where court partially revoked first instance decision on process suspension and cost allocation.
VSK sklep Cp 526/2011
Appeal allowed; first instance court violated ZPP by assuming defendant consent to withdrawal without notifying them.
VSL sklep II Cp 7506/2006
Court partially allows appeal on legal fees, rejecting mandatory bar association interpretations not published in official gazette.
VDSS sklep Pdp 468/2013
Appeal allowed: First-instance court erred by halting proceedings for plaintiffs who did not withdraw their claims.
VSL sklep I Cpg 719/2011
Appeal court orders withdrawing plaintiff to pay defendant costs under ZPP Art. 158(1) due to withdrawal.

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 se zavrne in potrdi sklep sodišča prve stopnje.

[JEDRO]

Umika izvršilnega predloga ni mogoče preklicati, čeprav je umik podan v zmoti glede določene dejanske okoliščine (n.pr. v zmotnem prepričanju, da je terjatev plačana).

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Upnik je dne 9.7.1993 umaknil izvršilni predlog, ker je dolžnik v celoti plačal svoj dolg. Nato je upnik z vlogo z dne 14.7.1993 obvestil sodišče, da ne umika izvršilnega predloga v celoti, temveč le za glavnico, vztraja pa pri izvršbi za obresti in stroške.

Prvostopno sodišče je s sklepom vzelo na znanje umik v celoti in izvršbo ustavilo. Zoper ta sklep se je upnik pravočasno pritožil.

Pritožba ni utemeljena.

Glede procesnih posledic umika izvršilnega predloga v zakonu o izvršilnem postopku (ZIP) ni posebnih določil. Zato je po členu 14 ZIP smiselno uporabiti določila zakona o pravdnem postopku (ZPP) in sicer določilo člena 193 ZPP o umiku tožbe. V tej zvezi je ustaljeno stališče sodne prakse, da umika tožbe - izvršilnega predloga ni mogoče preklicati, ker tožbe - predloga ni več. Umik izvršilnega predloga neposredno vpliva na procesno stanje. Umika ni mogoče preklicati, čeprav je umik podan v zmoti glede določene dejanske okoliščine (n. pr. v zmotnem prepričanju, da je terjatev plačana). V kolikor dolg še ni v celoti ali delno plačan, ga bo lahko upnik izterjal z novim izvršilnim predlogom.