Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSL sklep I Cp 1551/99 ECLI:SI:VSLJ:1999:I.CP.1551.99 AI generated

Appeal dismissed as time-barred; second appeal filed after first was rejected as late. Second appeal also time-barred. Appeal dismissed.

Case Number VSL sklep I Cp 1551/99
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 appellant's appeal, which was filed after the first appeal against a default judgment had already been rejected as time-barred. The appellant had previously filed a request for restoration of the previous state and a second appeal, both of which were deemed untimely. The court ruled that since the second appeal was filed beyond the 15-day limitation period, it was inadmissible and the court could not examine the merits.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Zakon o postopku v civilnih zadevah (ZPP); appeal must be filed within 15 days of service; if a prior appeal is rejected as time-barred, a subsequent appeal is also time-barred.

Keywords

AI generated
time-barred appeal limitation period default judgment restoration of state civil procedure

Cited Legislation

AI generated
380. člen ZPP/77
381. člen ZPP/77
358. člen ZPP/77
AI generated
VSL sklep I Cpg 735/2000
Appeal allowed; first instance court dismissed return request without mandatory hearing, violating procedural law.
VDSS sklep Pdp 1208/2009
Appeal dismissed; court held no procedural violation occurred when a default judgment was served via public notice after a missed personal delivery attempt.
VDSS Sklep Psp 53/2019
Appeal dismissed because plaintiff filed complaints against judgment and amended judgment after statutory deadlines expired.
VSL sklep II Cp 3898/2008
Appeal dismissed; court rejected claim that service date was May 5 due to missing seal on receipt. The court held that internal records and lack of seal do not override the written date on the receipt. The court ruled that the appellant cannot rely on the lawyer's office staff error to invalidate the service date. The court found the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence to overturn the statutory presumption of service date. The court determined the appeal was procedurally improper as it mixed procedural and substantive arguments. The court affirmed the first instance decision regarding the service date and procedural timeline.
VSM sklep Kp 683/99
Criminal appeal dismissed because defendant failed to file within 8 days despite prior instruction and health claims.

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 tožene stranke z dne 10.5.1999 se zavrže.

[JEDRO]

Prepozna pritožba se zavrže.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Prvo sodišče je dne 15.12.1998 izdalo proti toženi stranki sodbo na podlagi izostanka, s katero je po združitvi pravdnih zadev P 9/97 in P 10/97 v enotno obravnavanje ugodilo zahtevkoma tožeče stranke (tč.

1 in 2 izreka sodbe) ter naložilo toženi stranki plačilo stroškov tožeče stranke v znesku 83.290,00 SIT (tč. 3. izreka sodbe). S sklepom z dne 25.3.1999, proti kateremu tožena stranka ni vložila pritožbe, je prvo sodišče zavrnilo njen predlog za razveljavitev klavzule pravnomočnosti sodbe z dne 15.12.1998 in kot prepozno zavrglo pritožbo (z dne 29.3.1999) proti sodbi zaradi izostanka.

Tožena stranka je nato 10.5.1999 vložila predlog za vrnitev v prejšnje stanje in podrejeno pritožbo proti sodbi zaradi izostanka z enako vsebino, kot je navedena v pritožbi z dne 29.3.1999. Predlog tožene stranke za vrnitev v prejšnje stanje je prvo sodišče s sklepom z dne 7.5.1999, ki je postal pravnomočen 28.6.1999, zavrglo. Spis je nato odstopilo Višjemu sodišču v Ljubljani zaradi odločitve o pritožbi tožene stranke z dne 10.5.1999 proti sodbi zaradi izostanka.

Pritožba je prepozna.

Kot izhaja iz opisanega poteka pravdnih dejanj strank in sodišča, je toženec proti sodbi zaradi izostanka vložil pritožbo 2-krat. Prvo pritožbo je sodišče zavrglo kot prepozno s sklepom z dne 25.3.1998, proti kateremu se toženec ni pritožil, pač pa je vložil predlog za vrnitev v prejšnje stanje in podrejeno ponovno pritožbo proti isti sodbi. Tudi ta druga pritožba je prepozna. Spisu priključena povratnica, ki je javna listina, dokazuje, da je toženec sodbo zaradi izostanka prejel dne 24.12.1998, torej je tudi pritožba proti sodbi zaradi izostanka, ki jo je tožena stranka vložila dne 10.5.1999, vložena po preteku prekluzivnega 15-dnevnega roka. Samo zaradi jasnosti je potrebno ponoviti, da je bil predlog tožene stranke za vrnitev v prejšnje stanje tudi pravnomočno zavržen.

Ker je pritožba tožene stranke prepozna, je sodišče druge stopnje vsebinsko ne more in ne sme obravnavati.

Zaradi povedanega je sodišče druge stopnje pritožbo tožene stranke z dne 10.5.1999 zavrglo (1. tč. 380. čl., 381., 358. čl. ZPP/77).