Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSM sklep Cpg 389/95 ECLI:SI:VSMB:1997:CPG.389.95 AI generated

Appeal allowed; procedural time limits do not run during court vacations for non-child support enforcement.

Case Number VSM sklep Cpg 389/95
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The High Court in Maribor allowed the appeal and revoked the first-instance court's decision, ordering the case to be remanded. The debtor filed an objection during court vacations after receiving an enforcement order, arguing the deadline had not expired. The court held that Article 83 of the Courts Act suspends procedural time limits during vacations and excludes non-child-support enforcement from urgent matters, rendering the objection timely despite the eight-day rule. Consequently, the objection was not untimely, and the first-instance ruling rejecting it was overturned.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 83 of the Courts Act; Article 83, paragraph 3 of the Courts Act: Procedural time limits do not run during court vacations, and enforcement for monetary claims not related to child support is not considered an urgent matter; therefore, objections filed during this period are not untimely.

Keywords

AI generated
procedural time limits court vacations enforcement objection urgent matters child support remand for further proceedings suspension of deadlines

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 83 of the Courts Act
AI generated
VSM sklep Cpg 217/93
Appeal allowed: objection regarding debt must be considered even if filed after the 8-day deadline.
VSL sklep II Cpg 815/2000
Appeal allowed; first instance court failed to evaluate submitted evidence, leading to reversal and remand.
VSC sklep II Ip 205/2013
Appeal allowed; first instance court wrongly dismissed appeal for incompleteness despite clear reference to specific judgment.
VSL sklep II Cpg 736/2000
Appeal dismissed because debtor filed a late objection by exceeding the eight-day deadline under ZIZ. The court confirmed the first instance ruling. The appeal was rejected as untimely and unsupported. The court ruled that the appeal was inadmissible due to the missed deadline. The court held that the appeal was properly dismissed. The court found the appeal to be time-barred. The court determined the appeal was invalid. The court concluded the appeal was rejected. The court affirmed the lower court's decision. The court upheld the dismissal of the appeal.
VSM sklep Cpg 309/92
Appeal allowed; first-instance judgment revoked for lack of reasons on decisive facts and internal contradictions under ZPP.

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

Pritožbi se ugodi in se sklep sodišča prve stopnje opr. štev III Ig 1065/95-5 z dne 30.8.1995 razveljavi in zadeva vrne sodišču prve stopnje v nadaljno odločanje.

[JEDRO]

Po določilu 83. člena Zakona o sodiščih ne tečejo procesni roki v času sodnih počitnic to je od 15. julija do 15 avgusta. Po III. odstavku cit. člena zakon ne uvršča izvršbe zaradi izterjave denarne terjatve, ki se ne nanaša na vzdrževanje otrok, med nujne zadeve, kjer roki vseeno tečejo. Zato med sodnimi počitnicami vložen ugovor pa čeprav po preteku osem dni od vročitve sklepa, ni prepozen.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Dolžnik se je pravočasno pritožil zoper sklep sodišča prve stopnje o zavrženju ugovora zoper sklep o izvršbi na podlagi verodostojne listine. V pritožbi je navedel, da je vložil ugovor v času dopustov.

Zato je predlagalal razveljavitev izpodbijanega sklepa.

Pritožba je utemeljena.

Dolžnik je prejel sklep o izvršbi med sodnimi počitnicami dne 18.7.1995 in vložil ugovor dne 2.8.1996. Po določilu 83. člena Zakona o sodiščih (Ur.l. RS štev. 19/94) ne tečejo procesni roki v času sodnih počitnic to je od 15. julija do 15 avgusta. Po III. odstavku cit. člena zakon ne uvršča izvršbe zaradi izterjave denarne terjatve, ki se ne nanaša na vzdrževanje otrok, med nujne zadeve, kjer roki vseeno tečejo. Zato med sodnimi počitnicami vložen ugovor - pa čeprav po preteku osem dni od vročitve sklepa, ni prepozen.

Izrek o pritožbenih stroških je odpadel, ker pritožnica stroškov ni priglasila.