Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSL sklep I Cpg 171/2000 ECLI:SI:VSLJ:2000:I.CPG.171.2000 AI generated

Court allows appeal against dismissal of notice of appeal due to late fee payment proof.

Case Number VSL sklep I Cpg 171/2000
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The appellate court granted the appeal, quashing the first-instance decision that had deemed the notice of appeal withdrawn due to alleged late court fee payment. The appellant argued they had paid the fee on December 28, 1999, providing bank confirmation, while the lower court initially found the payment untimely. The court ruled that since the fee was paid within the 15-day period following the reminder, the withdrawal presumption did not apply, necessitating the return of the case for further proceedings.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

3. odst. 497. člena ZPP; 4. odst. 26. člena ZST: A notice of appeal is not deemed withdrawn if the court fee is paid within the statutory period following a reminder, even if the payment is proven only upon filing the appeal.

Keywords

AI generated
withdrawal of appeal court fee payment statutory period reminder notice appellate review procedural default bank confirmation

Cited Legislation

AI generated
3. odst. 497. člena ZPP
Po določbi 3. odst. 497. člena ZPP se šteje, da je stranka umaknila napoved pritožbe, če niti po opomonu, ki ji ga pošlje sodišče po predpisih o sodnih taksah, ne plača sodne takse za pritožbo.
4. odst. 26. člena ZST
Ker je po določbi 4. odst. 26. člena ZST rok za plačilo sodne takse 15 dni od prejema opomina, je bila taksa plačana pravočasno.
3. točka 365. člena ZPP
496. člena ZPP
AI generated
VSL sklep I Cpg 1475/99
Appeal dismissed because plaintiff failed to pay court fees after receiving a reminder, rendering the appeal withdrawn under ZPP.
VSRS Sklep VIII Ips 166/2017
Appeal dismissed; service of payment order to lawyer suffices as personal service to client. Service to lawyer counts as valid service to client under ZPP. Court rejected claim of procedural violation. Service to lawyer is valid service to client. No need for special notice to client. Appeal dismissed due to non-payment. Service to lawyer is valid. No procedural violation found. Appeal dismissed. Service to lawyer is valid. No procedural violation. Appeal dismissed.
VSL Sklep I Cpg 234/2023
Appeal dismissed because legal representative's sick leave does not excuse unpaid court fees for a legal entity. The court ruled that the representative must ensure the entity's ability to pay. The appeal was rejected as the representative's illness does not excuse the entity's failure to pay court fees. The court held that a legal representative's illness does not excuse a legal entity from paying court fees. The court ruled that the representative must ensure the entity's ability to pay. The appeal was rejected as the representative's illness does not excuse the entity's failure to pay court fees. The court held that a legal representative's illness does not excuse a legal entity from paying court fees.
VSM sklep II Ip 967/2010
Appeal dismissed because the lawyer representing the debtor failed to prove they passed the bar exam.
VSL Sklep II Cp 1019/2019
Appeal dismissed because late payment of appeal fee resulted in withdrawal of the appeal under ZPP rules.

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

Pritožbi se ugodi, izpodbijani sklep se razveljavi in se zadeva vrne sodišču prve stopnje v nadaljnji postopek.

[JEDRO]

Ker je tožeča stranka pravočasno plačala sodno takso za pritožbo, ni mogoče šteti napovedi pritožbe za umaknjeno, čeprav sodišča prve stopnje o plačilu takse ni obvestila, ampak je dokaz o plačilu predložila šele s pritožbo zoper sklep o umiku napovedi pritožbe.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Sodišče prve stopnje je sklenilo, da se šteje napoved pritožbe za umaknjeno, ker tožeča stranka ni pravočasno plačala sodne takse za pritožbo. Zoper sklep se je tožeča stranka pravočasno pritožila in navedla, da je takso za pritožbo pravočasno plačala. Pritožba je utemeljena. Po določbi 3. odst. 497. člena ZPP se šteje, da je stranka umaknila napoved pritožbe, če niti po opomonu, ki ji ga pošlje sodišče po predpisih o sodnih taksah, ne plača sodne takse za pritožbo. V obravnavani zadevi je tožeča stranka prejela opomin za plačilo takse za pritožbo dne 22.12.1999 (vročilnica pri r.št. 28 v spisu).

Iz potrdila SKB banke o plačilu, opravljanam preko SKB NET-a z dne 28.12.1999, priloženega pritožbi, sledi, da je tožeča stranka plačala takso v znesku 57.000,00 SIT dne 28.12.1999 z valutacijo dne 29.12.1999. Ker je po določbi 4. odst. 26. člena ZST rok za plačilo sodne takse 15 dni od prejema opomina, je bila taksa plačana pravočasno. Zato ni podlage za domnevo, da je tožeča stranka napoved pritožbe umaknila. Pritožbeno sodišče je torej moralo na podlagi določbe 3. točke 365. člena ZPP napadeni sklep razveljaviti in vrniti zadevo sodišču prve stopnje v nadaljnji postopek po določbah 496.

člena ZPP.