Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSM sklep Cpg 211/95 ECLI:SI:VSMB:1997:CPG.211.95 AI generated

Appeal dismissed; execution request rejected when applicant failed to submit original title and proof of enforceability to the same court.

Case Number VSM sklep Cpg 211/95
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The appeal was rejected, and the first-instance court's decision to dismiss the execution request was upheld. The applicant filed an execution request at the district court based on a judgment from the district court, but the court required the original title and proof of enforceability under Article 36 of the Enforcement Act. The court dismissed the request because the applicant did not submit these documents within the deadline. The appeal failed because the law exempts this requirement only when the execution request is filed at the same court that decided on the claim, which was not the case here.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 36 of the Enforcement Act; When an execution request is filed at the same court that decided on the claim, the applicant is not required to submit the original title and proof of enforceability; however, if the execution court differs from the deciding court, such documents must be submitted, and failure to do so results in dismissal of the request.

Keywords

AI generated
Enforcement Act Article 36 execution request filing same court requirement original title submission proof of enforceability dismissal of execution procedural prerequisites

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 36 of the Enforcement Act
AI generated
VSRS Sklep I Up 122/2020
Sodišče prve stopnje je z izpodbijanim sklepom na podlagi 343.
VDSS Sklep Psp 178/2017
Appeal dismissed because applicant lacked lawyer or bar exam qualification to file motion for retrial.
VSL Sklep II Cpg 594/2018
Appeal dismissed; late amendment rejected due to service date discrepancy not proven by photocopy. 14 words.
VSL sklep II Ip 4625/2011
Appeal dismissed because the debtor's insolvency proceedings were already underway, negating the creditor's legal interest to challenge the first-instance ruling.
VSM sklep Cpg 239/95
Appeal dismissed; creditor must name bank in execution request for natural person debtor under ZIP s. 98.

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 kot neutemeljena in se potrdi sklep sodišča prve stopnje.

[JEDRO]

Upnik je vložil pri okrajnem sodišču izvršilni predlog na podlagi sklepa okrožnega sodišča. Ker nista izvršilno sodišče in tisto, ki je odločilo o terjatvi - isto sodišče, je prvostopno sodišče utemeljeno zahtevalo priloge po 1. odst. 36. člena ZPP, po neuspešnem poteku roka pa izvršilni predlog zavrglo.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Upnik se je pravočasno pritožil zoper sklep sodišča prve stopnje, ki je izvršilni predlog zavrglo, ker upnik na poziv sodišča ni predložil izvršilnega naslova v izvirniku in potrdila o pravnomočnosti ter izvršljivosti.

Pritožba ni utemeljena.

Po določilu I. odstavka 36. člena ZIP upniku ni potrebno priložiti izvršilnemu predlogu izvršilni naslov v izvirniku in potrdilo o izvršljivosti, kadar je izvršilni predlog vložen pri istem sodišču, ki je o terjatvi odločilo. Upnik je dne 8.3.1995 vložil pri okrajnem sodišču izvršilni predlog na podlagi sklepa okrožnega sodišča opr.

štev. I Pg 489/93 z dne 28.2.1995. Ker nista izvršilno sodišče in tisto, ki je odločilo o terjatvi - isto sodišče, je prvostopno sodišče utemeljeno zahtevalo priloge po 1. odst. 36. člena ZPP, po neuspešnem poteku roka pa izvršilni predlog zavrglo.

Izrek o pritožbenih stroških je odpadel, ker niso bili priglašeni.