Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSL sklep I Cpg 66/00 ECLI:SI:VSLJ:2000:I.CPG.66.00 AI generated

Appeal dismissed because appellant is not a party or tax liable person and lacks standing.

Case Number VSL sklep I Cpg 66/00
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The appellate court rejected the appeal filed by A. d.o.o. against a first-instance decision ordering the payment of court taxes. The appellant argued it was not involved in the underlying commercial dispute and thus should not bear the tax liability. The court ruled that only parties to the proceedings or the tax liable person have the right to appeal, and since the appellant was neither, the appeal was inadmissible.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

1. odst. 365. člen ZPP/99; 1. odst. 333. in 3. odst. 343. člen ZPP/99: An appeal is inadmissible if filed by a person who is not a party to the proceedings or the tax liable person, as only they possess the requisite standing to challenge the decision.

Keywords

AI generated
standing to appeal tax liable person inadmissible appeal court tax payment commercial dispute

Cited Legislation

AI generated
1. odst. 365. člen ZPP/99
1. odst. 333. člen ZPP/99
3. odst. 343. člen ZPP/99
AI generated
VSL sklep I Cpg 291/2000
Appeal partially allowed; court fee dismissed due to improper service to lawyer; appeal fee upheld.
VSL sklep II Cpg 240/2000
Appeal allowed: unpaid enforcement application fee deemed withdrawal prevents forced collection under ZIZ.
VSL sklep I Cpg 158/2000
Court dismisses appeal against court fees order, ruling legal entities cannot claim fee reduction based on income.
VDS sodba in sklep Pdp 1446/2004
Court partially allows appeal against tax assessment, reducing debt after proving partial payment via bank transfer.
VSL sklep I Cpg 615/2001
Court dismisses appeal on court fees due to statute of limitations not having expired before the fee was due.

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 zavrže.

[JEDRO]

Ker pritožnik ni stranka oziroma taksni zavezanec, nima pravice vložiti pritožbo zoper izpodbijani sklep. Sodišče druge stopnje je zato njegovo pritožbo zavrglo kot nedovoljeno (smis. uporaba 1. odst. 365. člena ZPP/99).

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Sodišče prve stopnje je z izpodbijanim sklepom ugotovilo, da tožena stranka kot taksni zavezanec ni plačala takse za pritožbo v znesku 32.400,00 SIT in takse za opomin v znesku 3.000,00 SIT; zato je sklenilo, da mora plačati še kazensko takso v znesku 17.700,00 SIT ter naročilo Agenciji za plačilni promet, da prenese znesek 53.100,00 SIT z računa taksnega zavezanca na račun sodnih taks.

Zoper sklep se je pravočasno pritožil A. d.o.o. in navedel, da ni v sporu s tožečo stranko; zato ni zavezanec za plačilo takse. Prosil je, da sodišče "umakne" sklep z njihovega žiro računa št.

50140-601-115852. Pritožba ni dovoljena.

Pritožbo lahko vloži oseba, ki jo ima pravico vložiti, sicer je nedovoljena (smis. uporaba 3. odst. 343. člena v zvezi s 366. členom ZPP/99); torej jo lahko vložita stranki postopka (smis. 1. odst. 333. člena v zvezi s 366. členom ZPP/99). Pritožnik pa ni stranka v tem postopku (gospodarskem sporu), iz katerega izhaja obveznost tožene stranke kot taksnega zavezanca za plačilo zgoraj navedene takse, kar sicer tudi sam navaja v pritožbi; to sta M. G. (tožeča stranka), in AK. d.o.o., (tožena stranka).

Ker pritožnik ni stranka gospodarskega spora oziroma taksni zavezanec, nima pravice vložiti pritožbo zoper izpodbijani sklep.

Sodišče druge stopnje je zato njegovo pritožbo zavrglo kot nedovoljeno (smis. uporaba 1. odst. 365. člena ZPP/99).