Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSL sklep III Cp 1297/2000 ECLI:SI:VSLJ:2000:III.CP.1297.2000 AI generated

Court dismisses appeal when creditor fails to correct an execution proposal within the extended deadline.

Case Number VSL sklep III Cp 1297/2000
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The appellate court rejected the appeal and upheld the first-instance court's decision to dismiss the creditor's execution proposal. The creditor's representative failed to correct the incomplete proposal within the extended statutory period, despite receiving a letter explaining the deficiency. The court confirmed that the first instance acted correctly by applying the relevant procedural deadlines, even though it did not formally extend the deadline for the correction request.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

108. člen Zakona o pravdnem postopku; 15. člen Zakona o izvršilnem postopku: A court must reject an execution proposal that remains uncorrected and unprocessable after the expiration of the extended deadline for amendment.

Keywords

AI generated
execution proposal procedural deadline correction of documents dismissal of appeal enforcement proceedings

Cited Legislation

AI generated
108. člen Zakona o pravdnem postopku
15. člen Zakona o izvršilnem postopku
AI generated
VSL sklep II Cpg 678/2002
Appeal allowed; first-instance court violated res judicata by retrying a final enforcement ruling.
VDSS Sklep Psp 178/2019
Appeal dismissed because electronic filing lacked a qualified digital signature required by law.
VDS Sklep Pdp 1353/99
Appeal dismissed because motion for retrial was filed outside the statutory 30-day limitation period. The court rejected the appeal without examining the merits of the renewal grounds. The court ruled that procedural deadlines for renewal motions are mandatory and strictly enforced. The court held that filing a motion for retrial after the expiration of the statutory period renders it inadmissible. The court emphasized that procedural deadlines for renewal motions are mandatory and strictly enforced. The court ruled that the appeal was inadmissible due to the untimely filing of the motion for retrial. The court dismissed the appeal because the motion for retrial was filed outside the statutory limitation period. The court held that the appeal was inadmissible due to the untimely filing of the motion for retrial. The court dismissed the appeal because the motion for retrial was filed outside the statutory limitation period.
VSK sklep II Ip 502/2008
Appeal court voids first-instance enforcement rejection due to improper court composition and procedural defects.
VSL sklep I Cpg 1344/99
Court allows appeal; service by knocking on door invalid; appeal filed within correct 30-day period.

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]

Za obravnavanje neprimeren predlog za izvršbo, ki ga upnik niti v podaljšanem roku ni popravil oziroma dopolnil, sodišče zavrže.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Z izpodbijanim sklepom je sodišče prve stopnje zavrglo predlog za izvršbo z dne 8.12.1999, ker ga zakonita zastopnica upnikov niti v podaljšanem roku ni popravila tako, da bi bil sposoben za obravnavanje. V pritožbi proti taki odločitvi zastopnica upnikov pojasnjuje, da je isti dan kot izpodbijani sklep o zavrženju prejela tudi pismo odvetnice (oz. Pravno informacijskega centra nevladnih organizacij), ki ga prilaga. Iz pisma je razvidno, zakaj kljub večkratnemu telefonskemu in pismenemu sodelovanju izvršilni predlog še ni dopolnjen. Pritožba ni utemeljena.

Iz podatkov v spisu sledi, da je prvo sodišče ravnalo in odločilo povsem pravilno in zakonito. Čeprav sicer o prošnji z dne 19.4.2000 za ponovno podaljšanje roka za popravo predloga ni formalno odločilo (tega pa tudi ni bilo dolžno storiti), je ta rok dejansko podaljšalo za skoraj tri mesece, to je do izdaje izpodbijanega sklepa, s katerim je še vedno nepopravljeni predlog kot nepopolen zavrglo. Tak postopek vsekakor je v skladu z določili 108. člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku v zvezi s 15. členom Zakona o izvršilnem postopku, zato je pritožbeno sodišče izpodbijani sklep potrdilo.

To pa seveda ne preprečuje ponovne vložitve predloga za izterjavo preživnine, seveda takšnega, ki bo za obravnavanje primeren.