Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSL sklep II Cpg 736/2000 ECLI:SI:VSLJ:2000:II.CPG.736.2000 AI generated

Appeal dismissed because debtor filed a late objection by exceeding the eight-day deadline under ZIZ. The court confirmed the first instance ruling. The appeal was rejected as untimely and unsupported. The court ruled that the appeal was inadmissible due to the missed deadline. The court held that the appeal was properly dismissed. The court found the appeal to be time-barred. The court determined the appeal was invalid. The court concluded the appeal was rejected. The court affirmed the lower court's decision. The court upheld the dismissal of the appeal.

Case Number VSL sklep II Cpg 736/2000
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 debtor's appeal, upholding the first-instance court's decision to reject the objection as untimely. The debtor filed an appeal after the eight-day deadline prescribed by Article 9, Section 3 of the Enforcement and Security Act (ZIZ), repeating arguments already rejected in a prior objection. The court ruled that the appeal was inadmissible because the filing date fell outside the statutory period, and the attached documents did not address the procedural defect.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 9, Section 3 of the Enforcement and Security Act (ZIZ); Article 2, Section 365 in conjunction with Article 15 of the Civil Procedure Act (ZPP): An appeal filed after the expiration of the eight-day statutory period is inadmissible and must be rejected as untimely.

Keywords

AI generated
enforcement procedure statutory deadline untimely appeal civil procedure law procedural defect ZIZ Article 9 ZPP Article 365

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 9, Section 3 of the Enforcement and Security Act (ZIZ)
Article 2, Section 365 of the Civil Procedure Act (ZPP)
Article 15 of the Enforcement and Security Act (ZIZ)
AI generated
VSL sklep II Cpg 1026/2000
Court dismisses debtor's appeal for enforcement as unreasoned and unsupported by facts under ZIZ. Debt remains valid.
VSL sklep II Cpg 1359/99
Court partially allows appeal against enforcement order where debtor provided evidence for some but not all disputed invoices.
VSL sklep II Cpg 98/00
Enforcement objection dismissed because debtor failed to provide evidence for debt offset claims under ZIZ.
VSM sklep Cpg 217/93
Appeal allowed: objection regarding debt must be considered even if filed after the 8-day deadline.
VSL sklep II Cpg 320/2000
Enforcement proceeding initiated by creditor; prior written warning not a procedural prerequisite for debt collection.

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 potrdi sklep sodišča prve stopnje.

[JEDRO]

Sodišče prve stopnje je ravnalo pravilno, ko je dolžnikovo pritožbo, vloženo po poteku osemdnevnega roka iz 3. odst. 9. čl. ZIZ, zavrglo kot prepozno.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Sodišče prve stopnje je z izpodbijanim sklepom zavrglo dolžnikovo pritožbo kot prepozno. Dolžnik se je zoper sklep pravočasno pritožil in navedel iste ugovorne razloge, kot jih je navajal že v ugovoru zoper sklep o izvršbi na podlagi verodostojne listine, ki ga je sodišče prve stopnje zavrglo kot prepoznega s sklepom z dne 17.2.2000. Pritožba ni utemeljena. Pritožbeno sodišče ugotavlja, da dolžnik v pritožbi, naslovljeni kot "ugovor zoper sklep o izvršbi", z nobeno konkretno trditvijo ne izpodbija pravilnosti odločitve sodišča prve stopnje v zvezi z zavrženjem njegove prepozne pritožbe zoper sklep o zavrženju ugovora zoper sklep o izvrbi kot prepoznega, temveč navaja povsem isto kot v prepoznem ugovoru, ki je bil zavržen s sklepom z dne 17.2.2000.

Tudi pritožbi priložene listine (priloge B36-B65) se nanašajo na samo terjatev in niso v nobeni zvezi z zavrženjem pritožbe. Zato je sodišče druge stopnje izpodbijani sklep preizkusilo samo v okviru pritožbenih razlogov, na katere pazi po uradni dolžnosti (2. odst. 350. čl. Zakona o pravdnem postopku - ZPP v zvezi s 15. čl. Zakona o izvršbi in zavarovanju - ZIZ). Ob tem je ugotovilo, da je dolžnik sklep opr. št. Ig 99/10442 z dne 17.2.2000 prejel dne 22.2.2000 (modra povratnica, pripeta k list. št. 13), pritožbo zoper ta sklep pa je oddal priporočeno na pošto dne 15.3.2000 (odtisnjena poštna znamka št.

R7479 na ovojnici, pripeti k list. št. 14). Iz povedanega izhaja, da je osemdnevni pritožbeni rok iz 3. odst. 9. čl. ZIZ potekel dne 1.3.2000, zato je sodišče prve stopnje ravnalo pravilno, ko je dolžnikovo pritožbo, vloženo po poteku tega roka, zavrglo kot prepozno. Iz vsega povedanega izhaja, da je odločitev sodišča prve stopnje pravilna, dolžnikova pritožba pa neutemeljena, zato jo je sodišče druge stopnje na podlagi 2. točke 365. čl. ZPP v zvezi s 15. čl. ZIZ zavrnilo kot neutemeljeno in potrdilo izpodbijani sklep.