Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSM sklep Cpg 333/95 ECLI:SI:VSMB:1997:CPG.333.95 AI generated

Appeal dismissed; late filing due to negligence by legal entity director constitutes waiver of right.

Case Number VSM sklep Cpg 333/95
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The appellate court dismissed the appeal against the first-instance court's rejection of the defendant's request to restore the previous situation. The defendant argued for a late objection filed on the final day, claiming it was sent via regular mail due to excusable reasons. The court ruled that failing to use registered mail on the deadline, especially by a legal entity's director, constitutes negligence and waives the right to appeal.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

2. odst. 113. člen ZPP: Failure to file an appeal by registered mail on the final day, due to negligence rather than force majeure, constitutes a waiver of the right to appeal, particularly when committed by a director of a legal entity.

Keywords

AI generated
negligence waiver registered mail requirement legal entity director appeal deadline force majeure distinction

Cited Legislation

AI generated
2. odst. 113. člen ZPP
AI generated
VSL Sklep I Ip 879/2020
Appeal dismissed; delivery to employee in business premises validly serves legal entity under ZPP Art. 133.
VSL sklep I Cpg 574/2000
Appeal dismissed; plaintiff failed to prove why evidence was unavailable during prior proceedings.
VSC sklep Cp 410/2008
Appeal dismissed; improper service of a time-barred judgment is not grounds for restoring previous proceedings.
Sklep I Up 296/2010
Appeal dismissed; late request for reinstatement rejected due to personal service on representative triggering deadline.
VSRS Sklep I Up 8/2015
Supreme Court dismisses appeal; applicant must have lawyer's license to file motion for trial restoration alone.

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]

Če je pritožnik iz nevednosti oddal zadnji dan pritožbenega roka ugovor z navadno in ne s priporočeno pošiljko, ki bi prispela, po določilu 2.odst. 113. člena ZPP, pravočasno, je to šteti kot malomarnost, še zlasti če tako ravna direktor pravne osebe, ki se udeležuje pravnega prometa.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Tožena stranka se je pravočasno pritožila zoper sklep sodišča prve stopnje, ki je zavrnilo njen predlog za vrnitev v prejšnje stanje. V pritožbi je navedla, da je do zamude pri vložitvi ugovora prišlo iz opravičljivih razlogov.

Pritožba ni utemeljena.

Pritožbeno sodišče se pridružuje razlogom izpodbijanega sklepa o razlogih, ki ne morejo biti podlaga vrnitvi v prejšnje stanje. K tem razlogom je le še dodati, da je bil pritožnik dne 4.5.1995 - torej zadnji dan pritožbenega roka - na pošti v M.S. Takrat bi lahko oddal ugovor s priporočenno pošiljko in bi le-ta bil po določilu 2.odst.

113. člena ZPP - pravočasen. Če tega ni storil zaradi nevednosti, je tudi to šteti kot malomarnost, še zlasti če tako ravna direktor pravne osebe, ki se udeležuje pravnega prometa.