Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSL sklep I Cp 1256/99 ECLI:SI:VSLJ:1999:I.CP.1256.99 AI generated

Appeal dismissed because the appeal failed to identify the specific judgment, violating mandatory appeal requirements under ZPP.

Case Number VSL sklep I Cp 1256/99
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's complaint, upholding the first-instance court's decision to reject the appeal as incomplete. The appellant failed to correctly cite the specific judgment number after being ordered to amend the appeal, leaving the court unable to determine which decision was being challenged. Consequently, the court ruled that without a clear identification of the target judgment, the appeal procedure cannot proceed, confirming the first-instance ruling as legally sound.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

351. člen ZPP; 380. člen ZPP: An appeal must clearly identify the specific judgment being challenged; failure to do so renders the appeal incomplete and inadmissible, preventing the appellate court from exercising its jurisdiction.

Keywords

AI generated
incomplete appeal mandatory appeal components identification of judgment ZPP appeal procedure inadmissible appeal procedural defect appellate jurisdiction

Cited Legislation

AI generated
1. odst. 351. člen Zakona o pravdnem postopku
2. odstavek 351. člen ZPP
2. točka 380. člen ZPP
AI generated
VSC sklep Cpg 390/2002
Appeal allowed: First instance court erred by treating partial tax payment as withdrawal without specific warning.
VSK sklep I Cpg 152/2006
Appeal dismissed because the appellant had already lodged a prior appeal on the same matter which the higher court had decided. The court ruled the new appeal inadmissible due to procedural exhaustion. The decision confirms the lower court's rejection of the duplicate appeal. The legal principle is that a second appeal on the same issue is not permitted after a final decision. Keywords include: procedural exhaustion; inadmissible appeal; duplicate appeal; final decision; procedural bar; appeal rejection; procedural order.
VSRS Sklep I Up 174/2017
Administrative appeal dismissed for lack of legal qualification and failure to prove bar exam completion.
VSK sklep I Cp 851/2004
Court holds grave placement disputes are property rights cases under ZPP, not administrative oversight. Dismissed
VSL sklep I Cp 72/2012
Unsigned appeal dismissed as incomplete under ZPP without prior return for correction.

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 potrdi sklep sodišča prve stopnje.

[JEDRO]

Pravilna navedba oziroma označba izpodbijane sodbe sodi med obvezne sestavine pritožbe, sicer sodišče ne more vedeti, zoper katero sodbo se vlaga pritožba, zaradi česar tudi ni mogoče izpeljati pritožbenega postopka.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Z uvodoma navedenim sklepom je sodišče prve stopnje kot nepopolno zavrglo pritožničino pritožbo zoper sodbo opr.št. I Pg 600/96. Pritožnica namreč potem, ko je sodišče ugotovilo, da v zadevi pod omenjeno opravilno številko pritožnica sploh ni pravdna stranka in jo v smislu 1. odst. 351. člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku (Ur.l. SFRJ 4/77 s spremembami, v nadaljevanju ZPP) pozvalo k popravi pritožbe v določenem roku, ni ustregla zahtevi naslovnega sodiča.

Zoper navedeni sklep se je pritožnica pritožila, in sicer zaradi tega, ker ji resnično ni jasno, za katero zadevo gre.

Pritožba ni utemeljena.

Pravilna navedba oziroma označba izpodbijane sodbe sodi po zakonu med obvezne sestavine pritožbe, saj sicer sodišče ne more vedeti zoper katero sodbo se vlaga pritožba, zaradi česar posledično tudi ni mogoče izpeljati pritožbenega postopka. Z ozirom na navedeno sama pritožničina trditev, da ne ve za katero zadevo gre, v bistvu potrjuje ustreznost izpodbijanega sklepa. Ker pritožba tudi sicer ne vsebuje ničesar, kar bi vnašalo kakršenkoli dvom v pravilnost izpodbijanega sklepa, je sodišče ugotovilo, da je prvostopenjsko sodišče ravnalo povsem v skladu z zakonom, ko je na podalgi 2. odstavka 351. člena ZPP zavrglo pritožničino pritožbo kot nepopolno, ker je v določenem roku ni popravila z navedbo ustrezne opravilne številke sodbe, ki jo je izpodbijala, s čimer je onemogočila ugotovitev, za katero zadevo sploh gre.

Sodišče ugotavlja, da pritožba ne vsebuje razlogov, iz katerih se sklep lahko izpodbija, prav tako pa niso podani razlogi, na katere mora paziti po uradni dolžnosti, zaradi česar je na podlagi 2. točke 380. člena ZPP zavrnilo pritožbo in potrdilo izpodbijani sklep.