Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSC sklep Cp 910/99 ECLI:SI:VSCE:1999:CP.910.99 AI generated

Court dismisses debtor's appeal on enforcement order due to lack of evidence for partial payments.

Case Number VSC sklep Cp 910/99
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The High Court in Celju dismissed the debtor's appeal against an enforcement order, confirming the first-instance judgment. The debtor argued that partial payments had been made and that the debt was largely settled, but failed to submit any documentary proof. The court ruled that without evidence, the debtor's claims could not be substantiated, and the enforcement title remained valid and consistent with the enforcement decision.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

člen 58/III ZIZ; When a debtor appeals an enforcement order without providing evidence of partial performance, the court must reject the appeal as unfounded and uphold the original enforcement decision.

Keywords

AI generated
enforcement order partial payment burden of proof enforcement title unfounded appeal ZIZ article 58 enforcement procedure

Cited Legislation

AI generated
člen 58/III ZIZ
AI generated
VSL sklep III Cp 1745/2000
Appeal court dismisses objection to garnishment of pension, ruling minimum wage protection does not apply to administratively blocked pensions.
VSL sklep III Cp 1913/99
Appeal court dismisses objection to enforcement when payments were made to a different creditor under a different title.
VSL sodba I Cp 1477/99
Subscriber liable for phone usage; burden of proof on subscriber to disprove unauthorized charges.
VSL sodba I Cpg 125/99
Appeal dismissed; court rejected new claim on additional works as inadmissible procedural innovation.
VSL sklep II Cpg 325/2000
Enforcement of debt transfer via private contract without notarization is inadmissible under enforcement law.

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 dolžnika se z a v r n e kot neutemeljena in se p o t r d i sklep sodišča prve stopnje stopnje.

Dolžnik sam trpi pritožbene stroške.

[JEDRO]

Sodišče po uradni dolžnosti preizkusi, ali so podane materialnopravne predpostavke za izvršbo (izvršilni naslov) in ali obstoji skladnost med izvršilnim naslovom in izvršilnim sklepom.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Na podlagi pravnomočne sodbe iz leta 1994 je bila dovoljena izvršba za glavnico 94.613,00 SIT z zamudnimi obrestmi od 24. 8. 1993 dalje in glede stroškov v znesku 2.073,00 SIT z zamudnimi obrestmi od 1. 9. 1994 dalje.

Proti takšnemu izvršilnemu sklepu je dolžnik vložil ugovor in v njem trdil, da je opravil delna plačila in da je obveznost v pretežnem delu poravnana. Dolžnik je še navedel, da bo naknadno predložil dokumentacijo o plačilih.

Prvostopno sodišče je ugovor kot neobrazložen po čl. 58/III ZIZ odstopilo pritožbenemu sodišču.

Ugovor kot pritožba je neutemeljena.

Dolžnik ni predložil nobenega dokaza o plačilu terjatve, zato o neargumentiranih trditvah ni mogoče odločati. Možen je še vedno ugovor po izteku roka.

Uraden preizkus je pokazal,da so bile podane materialnopravne predpostavke za izvršbo in da ni absolutnih bistvenih kršitev postopka. Izvršilni naslov je postal pravnomočen dne 11. 11. 1994, izpolnitveni rok pa je potekel v istem letu.

Glavne in stranske terjatve so skladne v izvršilnem sklepu in v izvršilnem naslovu.

Glede na zavrnitev pritožbe dolžnik sam trpi pritožbene stroške, oziroma stroške ugovora.