Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSL sklep I Cpg 915/2000 ECLI:SI:VSLJ:2000:I.CPG.915.2000 AI generated

Appeal dismissed because temporary order would expire before appeal filing, negating legal interest.

Case Number VSL sklep I Cpg 915/2000
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The appellate court dismissed the creditor's appeal against the first-instance rejection of a temporary injunction. The creditor argued for a stay of enforcement until July 16, 2000, but the court found that the temporary order would expire on July 18, 2000, upon the filing of the appeal. Consequently, the court ruled that the creditor lacked a legal interest in appealing since the protective measure would cease to exist before the appeal could take effect.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

ZPP 343. člen 3. odst. in 351. člen 1. odst.; An appeal is inadmissible if the temporary order sought to be preserved would expire before the appeal is filed, thereby negating the appellant's legal interest.

Keywords

AI generated
legal interest in appeal temporary injunction expiration inadmissible appeal enforcement stay procedural time limits

Cited Legislation

AI generated
3. odst. 343. člena ZPP
1. odst. 351. člena ZPP
člena in 1. odst. 351. člena ZPP v zvezi s 15.
15. člen ZIZ
AI generated
VSL sklep I Cpg 1173/2000
Appeal dismissed; court upheld temporary order against acceptance notes due to incomplete contract performance.
VSL sklep I Cpg 1066/2010
Appeal dismissed; court held tax liability arose when enforcement file arrived, not when revocation became final. The appellant failed to request payment deferral in time. The court rejected the argument that the tax obligation only arose upon the finality of the revocation decision. The court found the first-instance court's factual error did not affect the outcome. The appellant was informed of the objection and thus knew of the tax obligation. The court ruled that the tax obligation arose when the enforcement file arrived at the court. The appellant failed to request payment deferral within the correct timeframe. The court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the first-instance decision. The appellant was informed of the objection and thus knew of the tax obligation. The court ruled that the tax obligation arose when the enforcement file arrived at the court. The appellant failed to request payment deferral within the correct timeframe. The court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the first-instance decision.
VSC Sklep II Ip 280/2021
Appeal allowed; court found first instance incorrectly ruled on unpaid court fee due to missing payment proof.
VSL sklep II Cpg 365/2000
Appeal dismissed; temporary injunction denied because draft acceptance was already realized on account balance.
VSL Sklep IV Cp 931/2020
Court partially allows appeal to raise child support from 100 to 200 EUR but dismisses request for mandatory COVID-19 testing.

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]

Upnik nima pravnega interesa za vložitev pritožbe, če bi ob vložitvi pritožbe začasna odredba po njegovem predlogu že nehala veljati.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Sodišče prve stopnje je zavrnilo predlog za izdajo začasne odredbe, s katero se naj bi Agenciji RS za plačilni promet, podružnica Ljubljana prepovedalo vnovčenje upnikove menice. Po predlogu upnika naj bi začasna odredba veljala do 16.7.2000. Upnik se je zoper sklep pravočasno pritožil zaradi nepravilne ugotovitve dejanskega stanja, nepravilne uporabe materialnega prava in bistvenih kršitev določb pravdnega postopka. Predlagal je spremembo izpodbijanega sklepa, tako da bi pritožbeno sodišče ugodilo predlogu za izdajo začasne odredbe.

Pritožba ni dovoljena. Po upnikovem predlogu naj bi začasna odredba veljala do 16.7.2000. Tudi če bi prvostopno sodišče z izpodbijanim sklepom ugodilo njegovemu predlogu in izdalo začasno odredbo, bi dne 18.7.2000, ko je vložil pritožbo, že nehala veljati. Zato ni videti, v čem bi bil njegov pravni interes za vložitev pritožbe. Tudi če bi v pritožbenem postopku uspel, si ne more obetati boljšega pravnega varstva svoje terjatve, ki jo želi zavarovati z začasno odredbo. V sami naravi vsake prepovedi je, da lahko učinkuje le v bodoče in ne za nazaj.

Na podlagi določb 3. odst. 343. člena in 1. odst. 351. člena ZPP v zvezi s 15. členom ZIZ je bilo zato treba pritožbo zavreči kot nedovoljeno.