Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSL sklep I Cp 1629/99 ECLI:SI:VSLJ:2000:I.CP.1629.99 AI generated

Appeal dismissed as late filed; court ruled appeal must be lodged within 15 days of service.

Case Number VSL sklep I Cp 1629/99
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 because it was filed after the statutory deadline expired. The first-instance court had ordered the defendant to pay 705,704.00 SIT plus interest, and the appellant received the judgment on May 7, 1999. Since the law requires filing within 15 days, the appellant's submission on May 28, 1999, was untimely and therefore inadmissible.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Zakon o pravdnem postopku - ZPP 1. odstavek 348. člen; 2. odstavek 358. člen: An appeal filed after the expiration of the fifteen-day period following service of the judgment is inadmissible and must be rejected.

Keywords

AI generated
statute of limitations timely appeal service of judgment procedural deadline inadmissible appeal

Cited Legislation

AI generated
1. odstavek 348. člen Zakona o pravdnem postopku - ZPP
2. odstavek 358. člen Zakona o pravdnem postopku - ZPP
člen 498 Zakona o pravdnem postopku - ZPP/99
AI generated
VSC Sklep II Ip 122/2023
Appeal dismissed; appeal filed late due to 15-day service fiction starting from notice date, not deposit date.
Sklep I Up 631/2004
Administrative appeal dismissed; remedy for missing filing deadline requires simultaneous request for restoration of status.
VSC sklep I Ip 325/2013
Appeal dismissed; failure to file within 8 days invalidates appeal; statutory rules on time limits apply automatically.
VDS Sklep Pdp 2301/94
Appeal dismissed; statutory 8-day appeal period in labor compensation cases is non-extendable.
VSL Sklep I Cp 63/2024
Appeal dismissed because the initial complaint was unsigned and thus procedurally incomplete under ZPP. The court confirmed the first-instance rejection. The appeal was signed but still rejected due to lack of substantive grounds. The court ruled that the appeal was procedurally defective and substantively unfounded, confirming the first-instance decision. The court held that the appeal was procedurally defective and substantively unfounded, confirming the first-instance decision. The court held that the appeal was procedurally defective and substantively unfounded, confirming the first-instance decision.

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 zavrže.

[JEDRO]

Prepozno pritožbo je treba zavreči.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Sodišče prve stopnje je z izpodbijano sodbo razsodilo, da mora tožena stranka plačati tožeči stranki 705.704,00 SIT z zakonitimi zamudnimi obrestmi od 14.5.1996 do plačila, odločilo pa je tudi o povrnitvi pravdnih stroškov. Izpodbijano sodbo je pritožnica prejela 7.5.1999. Po določbi 1. odstavka 348. člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku - ZPP in v skladu s pravnim poukom bi pritožbo morala vložiti v 15 dneh od vročitve. Pritožnica je pritožbo vložila 28.5.1999, torej po izteku roka. Pritožba je zato prepozna. Pritožbo je bilo zato treba zavreči po določbi 2. odstavka 358. člena ZPP v zvezi s členom 367 ZPP. Določbe ZPP/77 so v tem sklepu uporabljene glede na člen 498 ZPP/99.