Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSL sklep II Cpg 896/99 ECLI:SI:VSLJ:1999:II.CPG.896.99 AI generated

Appeal dismissed; partial revocation of enforcement order required for reasoned objections under ZIZ Art. 62(2).

Case Number VSL sklep II Cpg 896/99
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 and upheld the first-instance judgment, which partially revoked the enforcement order. The debtor raised a reasoned objection under Article 62(2) of the Enforcement and Security Act, arguing the debt was disputed, but the court held that such objections only permit partial revocation and continuation of proceedings. Consequently, the case was remitted to the trial court to determine the validity of the claim based on the evidence presented.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 62(2) of the Enforcement and Security Act; Article 53(2) of the Enforcement and Security Act: A reasoned objection to enforcement based on disputed claims necessitates only partial revocation of the enforcement order and continuation of the procedure as an objection against a payment order, leaving the substantive dispute for the trial court.

Keywords

AI generated
Enforcement and Security Act partial revocation reasoned objection payment order procedure disputed debt remittal to trial court enforcement order

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 62(2) of the Enforcement and Security Act (ZIZ)
Article 53(2) of the Enforcement and Security Act (ZIZ)
Article 15 of the Enforcement and Security Act (ZIZ)
Article 380(2) of the Civil Procedure Act
AI generated
VSL sklep II Cpg 492/2000
Appeal dismissed; court held debt due despite debtor's claim of extended payment terms and request for hearing.
VSL sklep III Cp 1619/99
Appeal dismissed because debtor lacks legal interest after enforcement order was partially revoked.
VSL sodba II Cp 2309/2015
Appeal granted; first-instance court violated adversarial principle by allowing only defendant to submit evidence.
VSL Sodba in sklep I Cp 1893/2017
Appeal court partially allowed enforcement costs claim while dismissing management fees due to missing key allocation data.
VSK sklep Cpg 203/99
Court dismisses debtor's appeal on enforcement of reliable document due to unproven and unexplained objection.

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 sklep sodišča prve stopnje potrdi.

[JEDRO]

Obrazloženemu ugovoru po določbi 2. odst. 62. člena lahko sledi le razveljavitev sklepa o izvršbi v delu, s katerim je bila dovoljena izvršba in nadaljevanje postopka kot pri ugovoru zoper plačilni nalog.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Sodišče prve stopnje je sklep o izvršbi razveljavilo v delu, s katerim je izvršbo dovolilo in odločilo, da bo o zahtevku in stroških odločeno v pravdnem postopku.

Upnik se je zoper sklep pritožil in zanikal karšenkoli razgovor, na katerega se sklicuje ugovoru priloženi dopis, za katerega upnik trdi, da ga vidi prvič. Sicer pa je upnik pri dolžniku večkrat "urgiral plačilo dolga", dolžnik pa ni (doslej) nikoli zanikal obstoja dolga.

Pritožbi je priložil izpis odprtih postavk na dan 30.11.1998 (priloga A4), pobotno izjavo z dne 27.6.1996 (priloga A5) in potrdilo o sprejemu pošilke (priloga A6).

Pritožba ni utemeljena.

V konkrentem primeru je dolžnik sklepu o izvršbi na podlagi verodostojne listine (postopek je tekel po določbah Zakona o izvršbi in zavarovanju - ZIZ) ugovarjal obrazloženo, kot to od njega zahteva 5. odst. 62. člena ZIZ (v zvezi z 2. odst. 53. člena ZIZ). Navedel je d naj bi bil v tem postopku uveljavljana terjatev sporna, v dokaz svojim navedbam pa je priložil dopis z dne 20.5.1996 (priloga B1 v spisu), naslovljen na upnika, iz katerega izhaja, da dolžnik po razgovoru z upnikom delno ne priznava računa št. 12/96, in sicer v višini 784.331,00. Tako obrazloženemu ugovoru pa po določbi 2. odst. 62. člena lahko sledi le razveljavitev sklepa o izvršbi v delu, s katerim je bila dovoljena izvršba in nadaljevanje postopka kot pri ugovoru zoper plačilni nalog. Pravilna in zakonita odločitev sodišča prve stopnje pa pomeni le to, da bo zadeva v nadaljevanju odstopljena pravdnemu sodišču, ki bo ocenilo moč dokazov in resničnost navedb strank tega postopka, na podlagi ugotovljenega dejanskega stanja pa odločilo o utemeljenosti upnikovega zahtevka.

Neutemeljeno pritožbo je bilo zato potrebno zavrniti in izpodbijani sklep potrditi (2. točka 380. člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku v zvezi s 15. členom ZIZ).