Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSL sklep II Cpg 169/2000 ECLI:SI:VSLJ:2000:II.CPG.169.2000 AI generated

Appeal dismissed because debtor's objection lacked required factual justification and evidence under enforcement law.

Case Number VSL sklep II Cpg 169/2000
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the first-instance decision confirming the enforcement order against the debtor. The debtor argued she had settled all debts with the creditor but failed to provide any supporting evidence or factual basis for this claim. The court ruled that an objection must be substantiated with facts and proof, and without such justification, the objection is deemed unfounded, leading to the rejection of the appeal.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 5 paragraph 62 of the Enforcement and Insolvency Act; Article 2 paragraph 53 of the Enforcement and Insolvency Act: An objection in enforcement proceedings is considered unfounded if the objector fails to state the facts justifying it and submit evidence, thereby rendering the objection invalid and the enforcement order enforceable.

Keywords

AI generated
enforcement objection burden of proof unfounded objection enforcement proceedings lack of evidence substantiation requirement upholding enforcement order

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 5 paragraph 62 of the Enforcement and Insolvency Act
Article 2 paragraph 53 of the Enforcement and Insolvency Act
Article 2 paragraph 350 of the Code of Civil Procedure
Article 2 paragraph 365 of the Code of Civil Procedure
Article 15 of the Enforcement and Insolvency Act
AI generated
VSL Sodba II Cp 1951/2018
Appeal dismissed; return of court documents is not required for valid service by fiction.
VSL sklep II Ip 3507/2014
Appeal dismissed; minor's majority does not invalidate mother's representation in enforcement proceedings.
VSM Sklep I Ip 313/2017
Appeal court voids enforcement order due to unclear debtor identification and remands case for retrial.
VSL sklep III Cp 82/98
Court dismisses lawyer's appeal for rejecting client conference fees as covered by other tariff items.
VSL sklep I Ip 2199/2015
Appeal dismissed; enforcement objection rejected as court acts within complaint basis under ZPP Art. 7.

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 in se izpodbijani sklep potrdi.

[JEDRO]

Ugovor je neobrazložen in zato neutemeljen.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Sodišče prve stopnje je naložilo dolžnici, da poravna v predlogu navedeno terjatev v znesku 230.075,00 SIT s pripadki (1. tč. izreka), dovolilo predlagano izvršbo (2. tč. izreka) in stroške upnika odmerilo na 22.650, 00 SIT (3. tč. izreka).

Proti sklepu je dolžnica pravočasno ugovarjala. V ugovoru je navedla, da do upnika nima več nobenih dolgov, ker jih je po dogovoru z gospo V. poravnala.

Prvostopno sodišče je ocenilo, da ugovor ni utemeljen in ga je zato na podlagi določila 5. odst. 62. čl. ZIZ poslalo višjemu sodišču, da o njem odloči kot o pritožbi.

Pritožba ni utemeljena.

Po določilu 2. odst. 53. čl. ZIZ mora ugovor biti obrazložen.

Obrazložen pa je, če v njem dolžnik navede dejstva, s katerimi ga utemeljuje in predloži dokaze za svoje trditve, sicer se šteje za neutemeljenega.

Za svojo trditev, da je dolg, ki je predmet te izvršbe, dolžnica poravnala, ni predložila nobenega dokaza. Zato je prvostopno sodišče njen ugovor pravilno štelo za neutemeljenega.

Ker torej pritožba ni utemeljena, ob uradnem preizkusu izpodbijanega sklepa pa pritožbeno sodišče ni zasledilo kršitev, na katere pazi po uradni dolžnosti (2. odst. 350. čl. ZPP, v zvezi s 15. čl. ZIZ), je pritožbo kot neutemeljeno zavrnilo in izpodbijani sklep potrdilo (2. odst. 365. čl.ZPP, v zvezi s 15. čl. ZIZ).