Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSL sklep I Kp 1088/99 ECLI:SI:VSLJ:1999:I.KP.1088.99 AI generated

Prosecutor's appeal dismissed as withdrawn; court rejects appeal due to withdrawal by prosecutor.

Case Number VSL sklep I Kp 1088/99
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The District Court in Ljubljana dismissed the prosecutor's appeal as inadmissible because the prosecutor withdrew it. The lower court had acquitted the defendant based on a specific provision of the Criminal Procedure Act, shifting procedural costs to the state budget. The prosecutor argued for a retrial but the court ruled that a withdrawal by the higher prosecutor renders the appeal void under the relevant statutory article.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 390 of the Criminal Procedure Act; Article 390 of the Criminal Procedure Act: An appeal by the higher public prosecutor is inadmissible if the prosecutor withdraws the appeal in writing before the court rules on it.

Keywords

AI generated
criminal appeal withdrawal inadmissible appeal prosecutor withdrawal Criminal Procedure Act acquittal appeal

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 390 of the Criminal Procedure Act
Article 358, paragraph 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act
Article 96, paragraph 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act
Article 92, paragraph 2, items 1-5 of the Criminal Procedure Act
Article 392, paragraph 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act
Article 394, paragraph 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act
AI generated
VSL sklep I Kp 1597/2006
Appeal granted; first-instance court erred by failing to assess threat severity in an attempted assault case.
VSL sklep I Kp 1041/2006
Appeal granted; lower court's failure to explain reasoning for conflicting evidence warrants retrial.
VSC sklep Cp 38/2007
Appeal allowed; first instance court reversed due to incomplete fact-finding on victim's threats.
VSL sklep I Kp 1046/99
Appeal allowed; first-instance court erred in fact-finding regarding threat severity and witness credibility.
Sodba I Ips 216/2001
Supreme Court voids lower court judgments for denying defense request to verify alibi phone calls.

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 okrožne državne tožilke se zavrže kot nedovoljena.

[JEDRO]

Pritožba okrožne državne tožilke je bila umaknjena, zato jo je bilo potrebno kot nedovoljeno zavreči.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Z uvodoma navedeno sodbo je Okrajno sodišče v Litiji obdolženca na podlagi 3. tč. 358. čl. Zakona o kazenskem postopku oprostilo obtožbe za kaznivo dejanje ogrožanja varnosti po 1. odst. 145. čl. Kazenskega zakonika. Po določilu 1. odst. 96. čl. Zakona o kazenskem postopku je odločilo, da stroški kazenskega postopka iz 1. do 5. tč. 2. odst. 92. čl. ZKP potrebni izdatki obdolženca in potrebni izdatki in nagrada njegovega zagovornika obremenjujejo proračun.

Zoper sodbo se je pravočasno pritožila Okrožna državna tožilka iz pritožbenega razloga zmotne in nepopolne ugotovitve dejanskega stanja ter predlagala, da pritožbeno sodišče pritožbi ugodi in izpodbijano sodbo razveljavi in vrne zadevo sodišču prve stopnje v novo sojenje, podrejeno pa, da ravna v smislu 5. odst. 392. čl. Zakona o kazenskem postopku v zvezi s 1. odst. 394. čl. ZKP.

Pritožbo okrožne državne tožilke je bilo potrebno kot nedovoljeno zavreči po določilu 390. čl. Zakona o kazenskem postopku, saj je višja državna tožilka A. Š. s pisno izjavo z dne 18.10.1999 njeno pritožbo umaknila.