Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSC sklep Kp 430/99 ECLI:SI:VSCE:2000:KP.430.99 AI generated

Victims' appeal dismissed; criminal prosecution continuation allowed within eight days after rejection notice.

Case Number VSC sklep Kp 430/99
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 victims' appeal against the first-instance court's rejection of their criminal complaint as time-barred. The victims argued the rejection violated procedural rights, but the court found their complaint was a valid continuation of the prosecution initiated by the public prosecutor. Consequently, the court upheld the first-instance decision because the victims failed to file their continuation request within the mandatory eight-day period following the rejection notice.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Zakon o kazenskem postopku; Ustava Republike Slovenije: Victims may continue criminal prosecution via the public prosecutor within eight days of receiving the rejection notice; failure to act within this period results in the loss of the right to continue the proceedings.

Keywords

AI generated
continuation of criminal prosecution eight-day time limit rejection of criminal complaint victims as plaintiffs procedural time limits public prosecutor involvement time-barred appeal

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 224/I of the Criminal Code
Criminal Procedure Act
Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia
AI generated
VDSS sklep Pdp 21/2014
Appeal dismissed because the legal representative failed to sign the appeal and no authorization was provided.
VSL Sklep II Cp 42/2021
Appeal court revokes lower court's dismissal of late procedural filing, ruling non-consideration is the only sanction under ZPP.
VDS sklep Pdp 1046/95
Appeal dismissed because statute of limitations expired and foreign judgment was not recognized in Slovenia.
VSL sklep I Cp 632/2015
Appeal dismissed because the appellant admitted filing the appeal late and failed to prove valid grounds for the delay.
Sklep II Ips 769/95
Supreme Court allows appeal, vacating lower rulings on tenant housing purchase rights under new 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

Pritožbo oškodovancev I.in A. M. se z a v r n e kot neutemeljeno.

[JEDRO]

Oškodovanec kot tožilec sme nadaljevati po državnem tožilcu zavržen kazenski pregon osumljenega v roku 8 dni, odkar je sprejel sporočilo o zavrženju.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Z v uvodu navedenim sklepom je sodišče prve stopnje vlogo I. in A. M.

z dne 27. 11. 1998 zavrglo kot prepozno.

Proti temu sklepu sta se pritožila oškodovanca I. in A. M., smiselno zaradi bistvene kršitve določb kazenskega postopka. Prav tako smiselno predlagata, da pritožbeno sodišče pritožbi ugodi in izpodbijani sklep razveljavi.

Pritožba ni utemeljena.

Pritožbena navedba, da vloga oškodovancev z dne 27.11.1998 ni v nikakršni zvezi s kazensko ovadbo z dne 28.9.1998, ni sprejemljiva, saj iz te druge vloge z dne 27. 11. 1998 izhaja, da se nanaša na enako dejansko stanje, kot je bilo navedeno že v prvi kazenski ovadbi v delu, ko oškodovanca govorita o motenju posesti in požigu, kar je pravno opredeliti kot kaznivo dejanje poškodovanja tuje stvari po členu 224/I KZ. Pritožbeno sodišče torej enako kot sodišče prve stopnje ugotavlja, da gre omenjeno vlogo smiselno šteti za nadaljevanje kazenskega pregona in je ob dejstvu, da sta oškodovanca to vlogo vložila po izteku osemdnevnega roka, pravilna tudi odločitev prvostopnega sodišča o zavrženju vloge kot prepozne.

Pritožbeno sodišče je ob odločanju o pritožbi izpodbijani sklep preizkusilo po uradni dolžnosti in ker tudi ta preizkus ni pokazal nepravilnosti, je bilo potrebno pritožbo I. in A. M. zavrniti kot neutemeljeno.