Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSM sklep Cpg 256/95 ECLI:SI:VSMB:1997:CPG.256.95 AI generated

Appeal granted; court stops collection of penalty fine due to statute of limitations despite unpaid confirmation.

Case Number VSM sklep Cpg 256/95
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Partially Allowed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The appellate court granted the appeal and modified the first-instance decision to halt the enforcement of court fees. The appellant had timely paid the regular and warning fees but failed to submit a payment confirmation within the required 15-day period, making them liable for a 10% penalty fine. The court decided not to enforce this penalty because the collection action had expired under the statute of limitations provisions.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Zakon o sodnih taksah; Zakon o sodnih taksah: While a party remains liable for a penalty fine for failing to submit a payment confirmation within the statutory period, the court may not enforce such a fine if the enforcement action has become time-barred.

Keywords

AI generated
statute of limitations court fees penalty fine payment confirmation enforcement suspension

Cited Legislation

AI generated
4. odst. 29. člen zakona o sodnih taksah
2. odst. 9. člen ZST
AI generated
VSM sklep Cpg 257/93
Appeal allowed; court ruled failure to serve summons or decide on payment order validity violates procedural rules.
VSM sklep Cpg 15/93
Appeal allowed; court order sent to wrong party voids compulsory court fee collection conditions.
VSM sklep Cpg 9/93
Court dismisses enforcement of late court fees when taxpayer proves timely payment within 15 days.
VSM sklep Cpg 323/93
Court allows appeal against tax collection order, ruling foreign residents have 90 days to pay.
VSM sklep Cpg 360/92
Court dismisses appeal when lower court undercharges court fees, ruling defendant owes more based on correct point values.

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. št. Ig 2096/92 z dne 6.4.1994 spremeni tako, da se izterjava sodne takse ustavi.

[JEDRO]

Taksni zavezanec ni predložil v 15 dnevnem roku potrdila o plačilu takse in je zato dolžan 10%-no kazensko takso iz 4.odst.29. člena zakona o sodnih taksah, vendar le-te sodišče ne bo izterjalo, ker je izterjava po 2. odst.9. člena ZST zastarala.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Upnik se je pravočasno pritožil zoper sklep o izterjavi redne, opominske in kazenske takse. V pritožbi je navedel, da je redno in opominsko takso pravočasno plačal.

Pritožba je utemeljena.

Upnik je pritožbi priložil bančni izpisek, iz katerega je razvidno, da je plačal redno in opominsko takso dne 27.11.1992 - torej v 15-dnevnem roku od prejema taksnega opomina. Tako ni razloga za prisilno izterjavo redne, opominske ter 50%-ne kazenske takse zaradi neplačila. Taksni zavezanec sicer ni predložil v 15 dnevnem roku potrdila o plačilu takse in je zato dolžan 10%-no kazensko takso iz 4.odst.29. člena zakona o sodnih taksah, vendar le-te sodišče ne bo izterjalo, ker je izterjava po 2. odst.9. člena ZST zastarala. Zato je pritožbeno sodišče izpodbijani sklep spremenilo in izterjavo ustavilo.