Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSL sklep II Cpg 1025/99 ECLI:SI:VSLJ:1999:II.CPG.1025.99 AI generated

Court dismisses debtor's objection to enforcement based on a credible document due to lack of supporting evidence.

Case Number VSL sklep II Cpg 1025/99
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The court dismissed the debtor's objection to an enforcement decision based on a credible document, ruling it inadmissible due to insufficient substantiation. Although the debtor claimed the debt was paid via the Payment Agency, the objection lacked both factual arguments and documentary proof as required by law. The court held that without evidence, the objection is deemed unfounded, and the enforcement decision stands.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 9, paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Enforcement Act; Article 53, paragraph 2 of the Enforcement Act: An objection to enforcement based on a credible document is inadmissible if it is not reasoned and supported by evidence, in which case it is deemed unfounded.

Keywords

AI generated
enforcement based on credible document unfounded objection lack of evidence payment agency procedural requirements

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 9, paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Enforcement Act
Article 53, paragraph 2 of the Enforcement Act
Article 62, paragraph 5 of the Enforcement Act
Article 15 of the Enforcement Act
Article 380, paragraph 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure
AI generated
VSL sklep II Cpg 929/99
Unfounded objection to enforcement based on verifiable document dismissed due to lack of reasoning and facts.
VSL sklep II Cpg 1053/99
Unfounded objection to enforcement based on verifiable title dismissed due to lack of factual argumentation and evidence.
VSL sklep II Cpg 462/2000
Appeal allowed; objection in enforcement proceedings dismissed due to lack of supporting evidence by debtor.
VSL sklep II Cpg 906/99
Unfounded objection to enforcement order dismissed due to lack of reasoning and final judgment.
VSK sklep II Ip 784/2007
Court dismisses debtor's appeal against enforcement order based on unexplained creditor claim.

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

Ugovor dolžnika (z dne 27.5.1999) se zavrne kot neutemeljen in se sklep o izvršbi potrdi.

[JEDRO]

Neobrazložen je ugovor dolžnika, če ugovoru niso priloženi tudi dokazi o zatrjevanem plačilu obveznosti.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Sodišče prve stopnje je neobrazložen ugovor dolžnika zoper sklep o izvršbi na podlagi verodostojne listine poslalo višjemu sodišču, da o njem odloči kot o pritožbi.

Dolžnik je v ugovoru navedel, da je vtoževani znesek poravnan, kar lahko tudi dokaže. Znesek je bil plačan preko Agencije za plačilni promet.

Ugovor ni utemeljen.

Zoper sklep o izvršbi na podlagi verodostojne listine lahko dolžnik (v roku 8 dni od njegove vročitve) vloži ugovor (prim. 2. in 3. odst. 9. čl. ZIZ). Vendar pa mora biti ugovor obrazložen (po 2. odst. 53. čl. ZIZ v zvezi s 5. odst. 62. čl. ZIZ). Tako mora dolžnik v njem navesti dejstva, s katerimi ga utemeljuje, in predložiti dokaze, sicer se ugovor šteje kot neutemeljen. Na navedeno je bil dolžnik v pravnem pouku izpodbijanega sklepa posebej opozorjen, pa je kljub temu ugovarjal neobrazloženo, saj za svoje navedbe o plačilu ni predložil nobenega dokaza. Glede na to je bil nadaljni postopek sodišča prve stopnje, ki je neobrazložen (in v posledici neutemeljen) ugovor poslalo višjemu sodišču, da o njem odloči kot o pritožbi, povsem v skladu s 5. odst. 62. čl. ZIZ.

Ker tudi ni najti razlogov, na katere je pritožbeno sodišče dolžno paziti po uradni dolžnosti, je bilo potrebno ugovor dolžnika zavrniti kot neutemeljen in izpodbijani sklep o izvršbi potrditi (po 2. točki 380. čl. ZPP v zvezi s 15. čl. ZIZ).