Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSL sklep II Cpg 408/2000 ECLI:SI:VSLJ:2000:II.CPG.408.2000 AI generated

Court dismisses debtor's appeal for enforcement order as mere payment promise lacks legal grounds under ZIZ Art. 55.

Case Number VSL sklep II Cpg 408/2000
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Second Instance Court dismissed the debtor's appeal against the first-instance enforcement order, confirming the lower court's decision. The debtor argued they would pay by a specific date but failed to provide substantive legal grounds under Article 55 of the Enforcement Act. The court ruled that a simple promise to pay does not constitute a valid objection to enforcement, as no facts were presented to show the debt ceased to exist.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 55 of the Enforcement Act; Article 2 paragraph 2 of Article 53 of the Enforcement Act; Article 365 paragraph 3 of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 15 of the Enforcement Act: A debtor's objection to an enforcement order must be substantiated with facts and evidence proving the termination of the claim; a mere promise to pay by a future date does not satisfy this requirement.

Keywords

AI generated
enforcement order objection grounds payment promise termination of claim substantive evidence ZIZ Article 55 civil procedure appeal

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 55 of the Enforcement Act
Article 53 paragraph 2 of the Enforcement Act
Article 365 paragraph 3 of the Civil Procedure Act
Article 15 of the Enforcement Act
AI generated
VSL sklep I Cpg 1405/2011
Appeal allowed; appeal court found first instance failed to conduct material legal review of the bill of exchange's validity.
VSL sklep III Cp 173/00
Court dismisses objection filed by non-debtor in enforcement proceedings under ZIZ Article 64.
VSL sklep II Cpg 29/2001
Appeal against enforcement order based on certified document dismissed due to lack of evidence and specific facts in objection.
VSL sklep III Ip 1862/2012
Court dismisses appeal, ruling each additional real estate asset requires a separate court fee increment under ZST-1.
VSK sklep II Cpg 212/2006
Appeal dismissed because debtor failed to specify the exact amount of the counterclaim used for set-off.

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]

Tožnikove ugovorne trditve ne predstavljajo dejstev, na podlagi katerih bi bilo mogoče sklepati, da je terjatev, ki izhaja iz pravnomočnega izvršilnega naslova, prenehala.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Sodišče prve stopnje je izdalo sklep o izvršbi na podlagi pravnomočne sodne odločbe. Prvi dolžnik A d.o.o. je vložil ugovor in navedel, da bodo obveznosti poravnali v čimkrajšem roku in da se jo obvežejo poravnati do 20.4.2000. Ugovor ni utemeljen.

Dolžnik mora zoper sklep o izvršbi ugovarjati obrazloženo.

Navesti mora torej dejstva in predložiti dokaze, ki ga utemeljujejo, sicer je njegov ugovor neutemeljen (2. odst.

53. čl. ZIZ). Dolžnik ni navedel ugovornih razlogov, ki izhajajo iz določila 55. člena ZIZ, saj je navedel le to, da se obvezuje obveznost poravnati do nekega datuma. To pa ni navedba takšnega dejstva, ki bi lahko pripeljala do ocene, da dolžnik ni dolžan poravnati terjatve upnika na podlagi pravnomočnega izvršilnega naslova. Ugovor zoper sklep o izvršbi je namreč mogoče vložiti iz razlogov, ki preprečujejo izvršbo (55. čl. ZIZ), teh pa dolžnik ni navedel.

Sodišče prve stopnje je pravilno ugotovilo, da ugovor ni utemeljen, zato ga je poslalo sodišču druge stopnje, da o njem odloči kot o pritožbi (2. odst. 54. čl. ZIZ). Ugovor dolžnika je bilo potrebno zavrniti kot neutemeljen in potrditi sklep o izvršbi sodišča prve stopnje po 3. tč. 365. čl. ZPP v zvezi s 15. čl. ZIZ.