Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSK sklep Cpg 335/99 ECLI:SI:VSKP:1999:CPG.335.99 AI generated

Court dismisses debt enforcement objection as unreasoned when citing only the legal basis without substantive arguments.

Case Number VSK sklep Cpg 335/99
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Second Instance Court rejected the debtor's appeal against a debt enforcement order, confirming the first-instance judgment. The debtor argued under Article 55 of the Enforcement Act that the case should be tried in court, but offered no substantive reasons for opposing the enforcement. The court ruled the objection unreasoned because the debtor failed to explain why the enforcement order was invalid, merely citing the statutory basis for the objection.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 55 of the Enforcement Act; Article 2 paragraph 53 and Article 5 paragraph 62 of the Enforcement and Security Act: An objection to an enforcement order citing only the legal provision without substantive grounds is deemed unreasoned and must be rejected.

Keywords

AI generated
debt enforcement unreasoned objection Enforcement Act security interest procedural default enforcement order legal basis

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 55 of the Enforcement Act
Article 2 paragraph 53 of the Enforcement and Security Act
Article 5 paragraph 62 of the Enforcement and Security Act
AI generated
VSL sklep II Cpg 1318/99
Appeal allowed: Business book extract is not a certified document without responsible person's signature and seal under ZIZ.
VSK sklep Cpg 302/99
Appeal dismissed because debtor failed to provide evidence for circumstances where they bear the burden of proof.
VSK sklep Cpg 308/99
Enforcement objection based on incomplete documents is dismissed as unreasoned and unfounded under ZIZ.
VSL sklep III Cp 197/00
Court dismisses debtor's objection and confirms enforcement order, ordering costs, interest, and principal repayment in sequence.
VSL sodba I Cpg 955/2013
Contractor dismissed appeal; failure to archive ads constitutes gross negligence regardless of specific contractual clauses.

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 zavrne kot neutemeljena in p o t r d i izpodbijani sklep o izvršbi sodišča prve stopnje.

[JEDRO]

Če dolžnik v ugovoru zoper sklep o izvršbi navaja le na podlagi katerega določila zakona vlaga ugovor in predlaga razveljavitev sklepa, je tak ugovor neobrazložen.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Z izpodbijanim sklepom o izvršbi, izdanim na podlagi verodostojne listine, je sodišče prve stopnje dolžniku naložilo, da upniku v 8 dneh plača znesek 139.924,40 SIT z zakonskimi zamudnimi obrestmi in stroške izvršilnega postopka, ki jih je odmerilo na 18.000,00 SIT, ter zaradi izterjave te terjatve zoper dolžnika dovolilo izvršbo z rubežem razpoložljivega dobroimetja na računu dolžnika in prenosom dobroimetja na račun upnika.

Zoper ta sklep je dolžnik vložil ugovor, ki ga je sodišče prve stopnje posredovalo pritožbenemu sodišču, da o njem odloči kot o pritožbi. V ugovoru dolžnik navaja, da izpodbija sklep v skladu s 55. členom Zakona o izvršilnem postopku (ZIP) v celoti in predlaga, da se predmetna zadeva obravnava v pravdi. Obljublja tudi, da bo obrazložitev podana naknadno.

Pritožba dolžnika ni utemeljena.

Pritožbeno sodišče ugotavlja, da se dolžnik v svojem ugovoru, ki ga sedaj pritožbeno sodišče obravnava kot pritožbo, neutemeljeno sklicuje na določilo 55. člena ZIP, saj v konkretni zadevi pride že v poštev Zakon o izvršbi in zavarovanju (ZIZ), zlasti njegovi določili 2. odst. 53. in 5. odst. 62. člena. Po teh določilih pa je treba dolžnikov ugovor res obravnavati kot neobrazložen in s tem neutemeljen, saj dolžnik v ničemer ne pove, zakaj sklep o izvršbi izpodbija. Pritožbeno sodišče je pritožbo dolžnika zato zavrnilo kot neutemeljeno in potrdilo sklep sodišča prve stopnje.