Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSM sklep Cpg 391/95 ECLI:SI:VSMB:1997:CPG.391.95 AI generated

Appeal allowed; first-instance court incorrectly applied higher enforcement fees before new tax law took effect.

Case Number VSM sklep Cpg 391/95
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 against the first-instance court's decision on enforcement costs, ordering a reduction in the plaintiff's fees. The plaintiff argued that the higher tax rate applicable to economic enforcement proceedings had not yet taken effect at the time the costs were incurred. The court agreed, noting that the increased tax rate only became valid on July 27, 1996, and thus the original assessment was erroneous.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Zakon o sodnih taksah; The court must apply the tax rate valid at the time the tax liability arose, rejecting the application of a new, higher rate if it was not in force when the enforcement proceedings commenced.

Keywords

AI generated
enforcement costs court fees tax law amendment retroactive application economic enforcement appellate review fee reduction

Cited Legislation

AI generated
20a člen ZIP
Pritožbeno sodišče je spremenilo prvostopni izrek o odmeri stroškov, in naložilo dolžniku plačilo izvršilnih stroškov z zamudnimi obrestmi od dneva izdaje izvršilnega sklepa to je od 9.5.1995 dalje (20a člen ZIP).
AI generated
VSL sklep III Cp 1603/99
Court allows objection to enforcement order when creditor fails to substantiate debtor's defense.
VSL sklep III Cp 890/2000
Court dismisses appeal against enforcement order where first instance court failed to justify zero cost award.
VSC sklep I Ip 357/2011
Appeal allowed; costs imposed on debtor by executor's wrongful seizure on another title are invalid.
VSL sklep II Ip 4094/2013
Appeal allowed; first instance court dismissed cost claim due to insufficient reasoning on valuation basis.
VSM sklep II Cp 2863/06
Court allows appeal, ruling debt settled upon bank transfer receipt, not order date, under ZOR s. 318.1.

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 I. stopnje opr. št. Ig 915/95-2 z dne 9.5.1995 v izreku o izvršilnih stroških spremeni tako, da se stroški upnika odmerijo na 5.400 sit.

[JEDRO]

Šele novela zakona o sodnih taksah, ki velja od 27.7.1996 dalje, je uvedla povišano takso tudi za tako imenovano gospodarsko izvršbo.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Upnik se je pravočasno pritožil zoper sklep o dovolitvi izvršbe in sicer v delu, s katerim je prvostopno sodišče odmerilo izvršilne stroške.

Pritožba je utemeljena.

Iz izpodbijanega sklepa izhaja, da je prvostopno sodišče upniku priznalo sodno takso za izvršilni predlog in sklep v znesku 8.800,00 sit ter znesek 1000,00 sit za pisarniške stroške. Prav ima pritožba, da je v času nastanka taksne obveze veljala za izv predlog le 50%-na taksa in za izvršilni predlog tudi 50%-na taksa. Šele novela zakona o sodnih taksah, ki velja od 27.7.1996 dalje, je uvedla povišano takso tudi za takozvano gospodarsko izvršbo.

Pritožbeno sodišče je spremenilo prvostopni izrek o odmeri stroškov, in naložilo dolžniku plačilo izvršilnih stroškov z zamudnimi obrestmi od dneva izdaje izvršilnega sklepa to je od 9.5.1995 dalje (20a člen ZIP).

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