Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSL sklep II Cpg 625/2000 ECLI:SI:VSLJ:2000:II.CPG.625.2000 AI generated

Appeal dismissed because debtor failed to cite statutory grounds for suspension under ZIP Article 50.

Case Number VSL sklep II Cpg 625/2000
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the first instance court's decision to confirm the enforcement order. The debtor argued that the business was closed since 1993 and relied on social support, but failed to cite any specific grounds for suspension under Article 50 of the Enforcement Act (ZIP). The court ruled that without legally relevant reasons explicitly stated in the objection, the enforcement proceeds and the debtor bears the costs.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 50 ZIP; Article 365(2) ZPP: An objection to enforcement is inadmissible if the debtor fails to cite statutory grounds for suspension, and the appeal against such a decision is likewise rejected for lack of legal basis.

Keywords

AI generated
enforcement objection ZIP Article 50 suspension grounds enforcement appeal costs allocation

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 50 ZIP
Article 365(2) ZPP
Article 15 ZIP
AI generated
VSL sklep III Ip 725/2014
Court partially allows appeal against enforcement order, rejecting double interest on debt and costs.
VSC Sklep I Ip 178/2023
Court allows partial appeal, ruling death of party in enforcement request is correctable defect under ZPP Art. 81.1.
VSRS Sklep II DoR 14/2022
Supreme Court rejects review application as legal conditions under ZPP Art. 367.a were not met.
VSL Sklep III Ip 1744/2018
Appeal dismissed; court held notification of future payments not required by law.
VSK sklep II Ip 310/2012
Court allows creditor's appeal, ruling that a notarial statement proving debt maturity is valid even if contract language suggests stricter requirements.

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 sklep potrdi.

[JEDRO]

Sodišče prve stopnje je v sklepu pravilno ocenilo, da dolžnica v ugovoru ni navedla nobenega razloga iz 50. člena ZIP.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Sodišče prve stopnje je ugovoru dolžnika zoper sklep o izvršbi delno ugodilo in predlog za izvršbo zavrnilo v delu, ki se nanaša na izterjavo 2.000,00 SIT z zakonitimi zamudnimi obrestmi, v preostalem delu pa je ugovor dolžnika zavrnilo kot neutemeljen in odločilo, da upnik sam nosi svoje stroške odgovora na ugovor. Zoper navedeni sklep je dolžnica vložila pritožbo, v kateri navaja, da je trgovina zaprta od konca leta 1993, njena situacija se je spremenila in živi od socialne podpore. Pritožba ni utemeljena. Upnik je vložil predlog za izvršbo na podlagi izvršilnega naslova, v konkretnem primeru sklepa o izvršbi.

Predlog za izvršbo je identičen z izvršilnim naslovom. Dolžnica v ugovoru ni navedla nobenega od razlogov iz 50. člena ZIP in je to tudi pravilno ugotovilo sodišče prve stopnje. V pritožbi tudi ne navaja prav nobenega razloga, ki bi utemeljeval drugačno odločitev sodišča prve stopnje. Navedeni razlogi v ugovoru niso pravno relevantni, zato ne morejo preprečiti izvršbe. Glede na navedeno je bilo potrebno pritožbo zavrniti in potrditi izpodbijani sklep sodišča prve stopnje po 2. točki 365. člena ZPP v zvezi s 15. členom ZIP.