Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSL sklep II Cpg 1289/99 ECLI:SI:VSLJ:2000:II.CPG.1289.99 AI generated

Court dismisses debtor's appeal for failing to substantiate objection with facts under ZIZ Article 53(2).

Case Number VSL sklep II Cpg 1289/99
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 debtor's appeal and upheld the first-instance court's decision to allow enforcement based on a credible document. Although the debtor formally objected to the entire enforcement order, the court found the objection completely unsubstantiated as it lacked any factual arguments regarding the existence, amount, or due date of the creditor's claim. Consequently, the court ruled that the debtor failed to meet the statutory requirement to provide relevant facts and evidence, rendering the objection inadmissible under Article 53(2) of the Enforcement and Security Act.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 53(2) of the Enforcement and Security Act; Article 365(2) of the Civil Procedure Act: A debtor's objection to an enforcement decision is deemed unfounded if the debtor fails to provide any facts challenging the claim's existence, amount, or due date, thereby violating the obligation to substantiate the objection with relevant facts and evidence.

Keywords

AI generated
enforcement objection unsubstantiated appeal creditor's claim ZIZ Article 53 civil procedure appeal

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 53(2) of the Enforcement and Security Act (ZIZ)
Article 365(2) of the Civil Procedure Act (ZPP)
Article 15 of the Enforcement and Security Act (ZIZ)
AI generated
VSL sklep II Cpg 5/2000
Appeal court dismisses creditor's enforcement objection based on non-receipt of invoice as insufficient under ZIZ.
VSL sklep II Cpg 1349/99
Court dismisses enforcement objection because debtor admitted business relationship and failed to prove otherwise.
VSL sklep II Cpg 1358/99
Enforcement objection dismissed due to failure to provide specific facts and evidence for payment delay agreement.
VSL sklep II Cpg 680/2000
Appeal dismissed because debtor failed to provide specific facts and evidence to justify objection under ZIZ. The court rejected the claim due to lack of substantiation. The court ruled the objection inadmissible due to lack of specific facts and evidence. The court dismissed the appeal because the debtor failed to substantiate the objection with facts and evidence. The court rejected the appeal as the debtor did not provide specific facts or evidence to support the objection. The court dismissed the appeal because the debtor failed to substantiate the objection with facts and evidence.
VSL sklep II Cpg 1170/99
Court dismisses appeal against enforcement order due to debtor's failure to substantiate interest calculation objection.

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

Ugovor se zavrne in se potrdi sklep sodišča prve stopnje.

[JEDRO]

Dolžnik ugovora ni z ničemer obrazložil, saj ni navedel nobenih dejstev, s katerimi bi izpodbijal obstoj, višino ali zapadlost upnikove terjatve, čeprav je bil na to opozorjen v pravnem pouku na sklepu, zato je njegov ugovor šteti za neutemeljen v smislu 2. odst. 53. čl. ZIZ.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Sodišče prve stopnje je z izpodbijanim sklepom dovolilo zoper dolžnika izvršbo na podlagi verodostojne listine zaradi izterjave terjatve 156.502,47 SIT s pripadki.

Dolžnik je zoper sklep pravočasno ugovarjal in navedel, da ugovarja v celoti in iz vseh razlogov.

Sodišče prve stopnje je ugotovilo, da je dolžnikov ugovor neobrazložen v skladu z določili 2. odst. 53. čl. Zakona o izvršbi in zavarovanju (ZIZ) in ga po 5. odst. 62. čl. ZIZ poslalo sodišču druge stopnje, da o njem odloči kot o pritožbi.

Ugovor ni utemeljen.

Drugi odstavek 53. čl. ZIZ nalaga dolžniku, da svoj ugovor zoper sklep o izvršbi obrazloži, to je, da navede pravno relevantna dejstva, s katerimi ga utemeljuje, in predloži tudi ustrezne dokaze za tako zatrjevana dejstva. Če dolžnik zgoraj navedenim zahtevam ne zadosti, se njegov ugovor šteje za neutemeljen.

Pritožbeno sodišče ugotavlja, da dolžnik ugovora ni z ničemer obrazložil, saj ni navedel nobenih dejstev, s katerimi bi izpodbijal obstoj, višino ali zapadlost upnikove terjatve, čeprav je bil na to opozorjen v pravnem pouku na sklepu, zato je njegov ugovor šteti za neutemeljen v smislu 2. odst. 53. čl. ZIZ.

Ker pritožbeno sodišče tudi pri preizkusu odločbe po uradni dolžnosti v skladu z 2. odst. 350. čl. Zakona o pravdnem postopku (ZPP) v zvezi s 15. čl. ZIZ ni ugotovilo kršitev, je na podlagi 2. točke 365. čl. ZPP v zvezi s 15. čl. ZIZ ugovor zavrnilo kot neobrazložen in potrdilo sklep sodišča prve stopnje o izvršbi.