Slovenian court dismisses appeal filed five days after the 8-day deadline expired for a court warning. The appeal was rejected as untimely and unreasoned. The court ruled that the appeal was inadmissible due to the expiration of the statutory time limit. The court held that the appeal was untimely and unreasoned, dismissing it under Article 402 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The court found the appeal inadmissible because it was filed five days after the 8-day deadline expired. The court ruled that the appeal was untimely and unreasoned, dismissing it under Article 402 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The court found the appeal inadmissible because it was filed five days after the 8-day deadline expired. The court ruled that the appeal was untimely and unreasoned, dismissing it under Article 402 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The court found the appeal inadmissible because it was filed five days after the 8-day deadline expired.
Slovenia (SI)
Legislator summary
AI generatedThe second-instance court dismissed the defendant's appeal as unfounded, upholding the first-instance court's rejection of the appeal as untimely. The defendant received a court warning for the crime of false accusation on January 13, 2000, but filed her appeal on January 26, 2000, five days after the 8-day deadline expired. The court ruled that the appeal was inadmissible because the statutory period had lapsed and could not be extended, and the defendant failed to provide any substantive grounds for her appeal.
Legislator headnote
AI generatedArticle 402 of the Criminal Procedure Act; Article 288/IV of the Criminal Code: An appeal filed after the expiration of the statutory time limit is inadmissible and must be rejected as untimely, regardless of the absence of substantive grounds.
Keywords
AI generatedCited Legislation
AI generatedRelated Decisions
AI generatedFull text
Pritožba obdolženke se zavrne kot neutemeljena.
[JEDRO]
Sodišče prve stopnje je pravilno ugotovilo, da je obdolženka pritožbo zoper sklep, s katerim ji je bil izrečen sodni opomin, vložila 5 dni po izteku pritožbenega roka ter je zato utemeljeno njeno pritožbo zavrglo kot prepozno. Sodišče druge stopnje je zato pritožbo obdolženke, ki niti ni navedla pritožbenih razlogov in ni obrazložila svoje pritožbe, zavrnilo kot neutemeljeno.
[OBRAZLOŽITEV]
Z uvodoma navedenim sklepom je sodišče prve stopnje kot prepozno zavrglo pritožbo obdolženke, ki jo je vložila zoper sklep, s katerim ji je sodišče prve stopnje izreklo sodni opomin za storitev kaznivega dejanja krive ovadbe po čl. 288/IV KZ.
Zoper takšen sklep je obdolženka vložila pritožbo brez navedbe pritožbenega razloga in obrazložitve, saj je v njej zgolj prosila, da pritožbeno sodišče zadevo prouči.
Pritožba ni utemeljena.
Kot je razvidno iz podatkov kazenskega spisa, je obdolženka sklep, s katerim ji je sodišče prve stopnje izreklo sodni opomin, prejela 13.1.2000, pritožbo pa vložila šele 26.1.2000, tedaj 5 dni po izteku 8-dnevnega pritožbenega roka. Zato je sodišče prve stopnje ravnalo pravilno, ko je njeno pritožbo zavrglo kot prepozno, saj je navedeni rok prekluziven in ga tedaj ni mogoče podaljševati ter je sodišče prve stopnje obdolženko o takšnem roku tudi ustrezno seznanilo s pisnim pravnim poukom v odločbi, s katero ji je izreklo sodni opomin.
Glede na povedano je bilo potrebno pritožbo obdolženke zavrniti kot neutemeljeno (III. odst. 402. čl. ZKP).