Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSL sklep II Cpg 590/2000 ECLI:SI:VSLJ:2000:II.CPG.590.2000 AI generated

Appeal dismissed because debtor challenged execution admissibility instead of the executor appointment decision.

Case Number VSL sklep II Cpg 590/2000
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The court of second instance dismissed the appeal and confirmed the first-instance decision appointing an executor and ordering the creditor to pay an advance. The debtor argued the appointment was unnecessary and impermissible due to ongoing liquidation proceedings, claiming the creditor could not be paid without proper documentation. The court ruled that the debtor's challenge to the execution's admissibility under Article 55 of the Enforcement Act must be raised via a separate objection, not an appeal against the appointment decision.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 4 paragraph 289 of the Enforcement Act; Article 2 paragraph 9 of the Enforcement Act: A party challenging the appointment of an executor must do so by appealing that specific decision; objections regarding the admissibility of the execution itself must be raised through a separate objection procedure.

Keywords

AI generated
enforcement appeal executor appointment liquidation proceedings execution admissibility wrong legal remedy advance payment order ZIZ enforcement act

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 1 paragraph 289 of the Enforcement Act
Article 4 paragraph 289 of the Enforcement Act
Article 55 of the Enforcement Act
Article 2 paragraph 9 of the Enforcement Act
Article 2 paragraph 350 of the Code of Civil Procedure in conjunction with Article 366 of the Code of Civil Procedure
Article 15 of the Enforcement Act
Article 2 paragraph 38 of the Enforcement Act
Article 2 paragraph 365 of the Code of Civil Procedure in conjunction with Article 15 of the Enforcement Act
AI generated
VSL Sklep Cst 22/2020
Appeal allowed; court requires proof of insolvency before mandatory liquidation of a company.
VSL sklep IV Cpg 1309/2010
Appeal allowed; first instance court failed to justify debt repayment in liquidation closure report.
VSL sklep III Cp 729/98
Appeal dismissed; enforcement during liquidation prohibited regardless of specific liquidation law cited.
VSL Sklep Cst 163/2021
Appeal by shareholder against insolvency liquidation dismissed due to insufficient evidence of non-insolvency.
VSL Sklep Cst 290/2020
Appeal dismissed; court upheld rejection of bankruptcy petition over later-found assets due to lack of proof for damages claim.

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 potrdi.

[JEDRO]

S pritožbenimi navedbami dolžnik ne izpodbija odločitve o postavitvi izvršitelja (prim. 4. odst. 289. člena ZIZ), temveč oporeka (sami) dopustnosti izvršbe (prim. 55. člen ZIZ), kar pa bi moral uveljavljati z drugim pravnim sredstvom, in sicer z ugovorom zoper sklep o izvršbi (prim. 2. odst. 9. člena ZIZ).

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Sodišče prve stopnje je z izpodbijanim sklepom določilo izvršitelja in upniku naložilo plačilo predujma za opravo dejanj izvršbe. V pravočasni pritožbi je dolžnik navedel, da je sklep nepotreben in nedopusten, saj je v likvidacijskem postopku. Ker upnik ni prijavil terjatve, je likvidacijska upravitelja ne moreta poplačati, saj nimata ustrezne dokumentacije. Ne glede na zamudo roka pa upnik lahko terjatev še vedno prijavi. Sicer pa je dolžnik predlagal preklic sklepa in napotitev upnika na prijavo terjatve v likvidacijskem postopku. Pri tem ni priglasil pritožbenih stroškov. Pritožba ni utemeljena. Z izpodbijanim sklepom je sodišče prve stopnje na podlagi 1. odst. 289. člena ZIZ za izvršitelja za izvedbo dejanj izvršbe določilo Z. Ž. (1. tč. izreka), medtem ko dolžnik s pritožbenimi navedbami ne izpodbija te odločitve, tj. odločitve o postavitvi imenovane osebe za izvršitelja (prim.

4. odst. 289. člena ZIZ), temveč oporeka (sami) dopustnosti izvršbe (prim. 55. člen ZIZ), kar pa bi moral uveljavljati z drugim pravnim sredstvom, in sicer z ugovorom zoper sklep o izvršbi (prim.

2. odst. 9. člena ZIZ). Odločitev sodišča prve stopnje je tako pravilna in zakonita. Sodišče druge stopnje namreč ob reševanju pritožbe tudi ni našlo bistvenih kršitev določb izvršilnega postopka, na katere pazi po uradni dolžnosti (2. odst. 350. člena v zvezi s 366. členom ZPP/99, oba v v zvezi s 15. členom ZIZ), medtem ko sklep o določitvi predujma (2. tč. izreka) zadeva upnika (2. odst. 38. člena ZIZ), ne pa dolžnika. Zato je pritožbo kot neutemeljeno zavrnilo in izpodbijani sklep potrdilo (2. tč. 365. člena ZPP/99 v zvezi s 15. členom ZIZ).