Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSL sklep II Cpg 1072/99 ECLI:SI:VSLJ:1999:II.CPG.1072.99 AI generated

Appeal dismissed; review against final enforcement judgment in execution proceedings is not permitted by law.

Case Number VSL sklep II Cpg 1072/99
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 against a first-instance decision rejecting a request for review. The applicant argued that the first-instance court erred by refusing to treat the review request as a request for protection of legality due to the low value of the disputed asset. The court ruled that Article 10(1) of the Enforcement Act explicitly prohibits review against final judgments in execution proceedings, leaving no legal basis for the applicant's alternative argument.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 10(1) of the Enforcement Act; Review against a final judgment rendered in execution proceedings and security proceedings is not permitted.

Keywords

AI generated
enforcement proceedings security proceedings review prohibition final judgment protection of legality appellate jurisdiction ZIZ enforcement act

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 10(1) of the Enforcement Act
Article 2(3) of Section 365 of the Civil Procedure Act
Article 381 of the Civil Procedure Act
Article 15 of the Enforcement Act
Article 2 of Section 380 of the Civil Procedure Act
AI generated
VSL sklep III Cp 262/2007
Appeal dismissed; creditor's appeal against final enforcement ruling rejected as review barred by law.
VSC Sklep I Cp 323/2021
Appeal against second-instance dismissal of appeal is rejected as only extraordinary remedies apply. Appeal against second-instance decision requires extraordinary remedies under ZPP. Appeal against second-instance decision is inadmissible as only extraordinary remedies apply. Appeal against second-instance decision is inadmissible; only extraordinary remedies apply under ZPP. Appeal against second-instance decision is inadmissible; only extraordinary remedies apply per ZPP. Appeal against second-instance decision is inadmissible; only extraordinary remedies apply. Appeal against second-instance decision is inadmissible; only extraordinary remedies apply. Appeal against second-instance decision is inadmissible; only extraordinary remedies apply. Appeal against second-instance decision is inadmissible; only extraordinary remedies apply. Appeal against second-instance decision is inadmissible; only extraordinary remedies apply.
Sklep II Ips 471/93
Supreme Court dismisses appeal against enforcement ruling, allowing only appeal against rejection of that appeal.
VSRS Sklep II DoR 424/2022
Supreme Court dismisses layperson's revision request due to lack of lawyer qualification under ZPP.
Sklep X Ips 436/2010
Supreme Court dismisses appeal for lack of specific legal issue and concrete proof of severe consequences.

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]

Po 1. odst. 10. člena ZIZ revizija zoper pravnomočno odločbo, izdano v postopku izvršbe in zavarovanja, ni dovoljena.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Sodišče prve stopnje je z izpodbijanim sklepom zahtevo za opravo revizije zoper sklep Višjega sodišča v Ljubljani z dne 8.4.1999, opr.

št. II Cpg 240/99, kot nedovoljeno zavrglo.

Zoper sklep se je upnik pravočasno pritožil. Navedel je, da sodišče prve stopnje revizije ne bi smelo zavreči, ker je vrednost spornega predmeta premajhna, temveč bi moralo revizijo opredeliti tudi kot pobudo za vložitev zahteve za varstvo zakonitosti.

Pritožba ni utemeljena.

Po 1. odst. 10. člena ZIZ revizija zoper pravnomočno odločbo, izdano v postopku izvršbe in zavarovanja, ni dovoljena. Zato je odločitev sodišča prve stopnje o zavrženju zahteve za revizijo v celoti pravilna. Zmotno je stališče pritožbe, da bi moralo prvostopno sodišče nedovoljeno revizijo šteti kot pobudo za varstvo zakonitosti.

Za tak zaključek niti v ZPP niti v ZIZ ni nikakršne osnove.

Ker sodišče prve stopnje tudi ni zagrešilo kršitev, na katere mora paziti pritožbeno sodišče po uradni dolžnosti (2. odst. 365. člena ZPP/77, v zvezi s 381. členom ZPP/77 in 15. členom ZIZ), je pritožbeno sodišče pritožbo zavrnilo kot neutemeljeno in potrdilo sklep sodišča prve stopnje (2. točka 380. člena ZPP/77 v zvezi s 15. členom ZIZ).

Določbe ZPP/77 (Ur.l. SFRJ, št. 4/77, 36/77, 36/80, 69/82, 58/84, 74/87, 14/88, 57/89, 29/90 in 27/90) je sodišče druge stopnje uporabilo na podlagi 1. odst. 498. člena ZPP (Ur.l. RS, št. 26/99).