Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSM sklep Cpg 304/95 ECLI:SI:VSMB:1997:CPG.304.95 AI generated

Appeal dismissed because it did not allege a missed deadline under Civil Procedure Act Article 119 or 118.

Case Number VSM sklep Cpg 304/95
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 as inadmissible because the appellant failed to allege a missed deadline under the Civil Procedure Act. The appellant argued the respondent unreasonably missed the objection period by instructing counsel only the day before expiration, noting objections need no justification. The court ruled that appeals against orders restoring the previous state are only admissible if they claim a violation of specific deadline provisions, which were not raised here.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 122 of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 119 and Articles 2, 3 of Section 118 of the Civil Procedure Act: An appeal against an order granting a request to restore the previous state is admissible only if it alleges a violation of the aforementioned deadline provisions.

Keywords

AI generated
Civil Procedure Act restoration of previous state admissibility of appeal missed deadline objection period

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 122 of the Civil Procedure Act
Article 119 of the Civil Procedure Act
Article 2 and Article 3 of Section 118 of the Civil Procedure Act
Article 366 of the Civil Procedure Act
AI generated
VSL sklep III Ip 937/2014
Court dismisses appeal for return to previous status due to client's failure to verify email delivery to counsel.
VSM sklep II Cp 8/2004
Appeal dismissed; proper service of enforcement order precludes delay defense under ZPP and ZIZ.
VSL sklep II Cpg 302/2000
Appeal against a stay of execution order is inadmissible; appeal against the revocation order is dismissed as unfounded.
VSM Sklep I Ip 167/2022
Appeal dismissed; service by mail box deemed valid despite closure and return of documents.
VSL Sklep III Cp 896/2024
Appeal dismissed; medical certificate alone insufficient to justify procedural delay without specific diagnosis.

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 kot nedovoljena zavrže.

[JEDRO]

Po določilu 122. člena ZPP je zoper sklep, s katerim se ugodi predlogu za vrnitev v prejšnje stanje, dovoljena pritožba le, če se s pritožbo uveljavlja kršitev 119. člena ZPP (zamujen rok za predlog ali zamujen narok), ali rokov iz 2. in 3. odstavka 118. člena ZPP (subjektivni in objektivni rok).

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Tožeča stranka se je pravočasno pritožila zoper sklep sodišča prve stopnje, ki je dovolilo toženi stranki vrnitev v prejšnje stanje - torej pravočasno vložitev ugovora. V pritožbi je tožnik navedel, da je toženec neupravičeno zamudil ugovorni rok, saj ugovora ni potrebno obrazložiti, za vložitev pa je pooblastil odvetnico šele dan pred iztekom roka.

Pritožba ni dovoljena.

Po določilu 122. člena ZPP je zoper sklep, s katerim se ugodi predlogu za vrnitev v prejšnje stanje, dovoljena pritožba le, če se s pritožbo uveljavlaja kršitev 119. člena ZPP, ali rokov iz 2. in 3. odstavka 118. člena ZPP. Takih razlogov pa pritožnik ne uveljavlja.

Ker pritožbe ni zavrglo prvostopno sodišče, je to po določilu 366. člena storilo pritožbeno sodišče.

Odločitev o stroških pritožbenega postopka se pridrži končni odločbi, pri čemer je dodati, da je toženka vložila stroškovnik za sestavo odgovora na pritožbo - ob pritožbi zoper sklep pa odgovor ni dovoljen.