Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSL sklep I Cpg 602/2000 ECLI:SI:VSLJ:2000:I.CPG.602.2000 AI generated

Appeal dismissed because plaintiff failed to pay court fees for appeal, rendering the request to restore previous state inadmissible.

Case Number VSL sklep I Cpg 602/2000
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The appellate court dismissed the appeal and upheld the first-instance court's rejection of the plaintiff's request to restore the previous procedural state. The plaintiff argued that the lower court ignored an earlier application, but the court found the initial application was untimely and lacked legal basis. Consequently, the court ruled that the plaintiff must have paid the required court fees by the date of the formal request for restoration, which they failed to do.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

2. tč. 365. člen Zakona o postopku pred sodišči; If a party requests restoration of the previous state after missing a deadline, they must perform the missed act, such as paying court fees, by the date of the request, with no right to await further reminders.

Keywords

AI generated
restoration of previous state court fees payment missed procedural deadline admissibility of appeal ZPP article 365

Cited Legislation

AI generated
2. tč. 365. člen ZPP
AI generated
VSL Sklep II Cp 436/2018
Appeal dismissed: Client's negligence in receiving lawyer's notice precludes reinstatement of proceedings.
VSL Sklep I Cpg 383/2024
Court allows late court fee payment due to unforeseen hip fracture and chemotherapy preventing prior prevention.
VSL sklep II Cp 329/2010
Court dismisses appeal where client's reliance on third party for court fee payment caused non-payment.
Sklep I Up 498/2012
Administrative appeal dismissed; work overload not a valid excuse for missing court fee payment deadline.
Sklep I Up 139/2011
Supreme Court dismisses appeal for late request to restore previous state due to procedural time limits.

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 sodišča prve stopnje potrdi.

[JEDRO]

Ker stranka skupaj s predlogom za vrnitev v prejšnje stanje ni opravila zamujenega dejanja, to je plačala predpisane sodne takse za pritožbo, je bil predlog za vrnitev v prejšnje stanje utemeljeno zavrnjen.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Z izpodbijanim sklepom je sodišče prve stopnje zavrnilo predlog tožene stranke za vrnitev v prejšnje stanje, ker tožena stranka skupaj s predlogom za vrnitev v prejšnje stanje (z vlogo z dne 21.2.2000) ni opravila zamujenega dejanja, to je plačala sodne takse za pritožbo.

Proti temu sklepu se tožena stranka pritožuje in predlaga, da se njeni pritožbi ugodi in izpodbijani sklep razveljavi ter zadeva vrne sodišču prve stopnje v nov postopek.

Pritožba ni utemeljena.

Tožena stranka neutemeljeno zatrjuje, da sodišče prve stopnje ni upoštevalo njene vloge z dne 21.1.2000. Z izpodbijanim sklepom je sodišče prve stopnje obravnavalo prav to vlogo tožene stranke. Pri njenem obravnavanju pa je pravilno zaključilo, da vloga ni utemeljena. Da bi bila tožena stranka uspešna s predlogom za vrnitev v prejšnje stanje, bi morala zamujeno dejanje, to je plačilo sodne takse, opraviti najkasneje ob vložitvi predloga z dne 21.2.2000, saj ni bilo nobene podlage, da bi čakala na še en opomin za plačilo sodne takse. Izpodbijani sklep, s katerim je sodišče prve stopnje predlog tožene stranke z dne 21.2.2000 zavrnilo, je pravilen, pritožba pa neutemeljena. Sodišče druge stopnje je zato pritožbo zavrnilo in izpodbijani sklep potrdilo (2. tč. 365. čl. ZPP).