Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSL sklep II Cpg 835/2000 ECLI:SI:VSLJ:2000:II.CPG.835.2000 AI generated

Appeal dismissed; court upheld enforcement order as debtor's company still exists despite seat change.

Case Number VSL sklep II Cpg 835/2000
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The court dismissed the appeal against a first-instance decision appointing an executor and setting a security deposit. The appellant argued the enforcement continued against a non-existent company, but the appellate court found the debtor's entity still existed, merely with a changed seat. Consequently, the court rejected the claim of procedural violation and denied the request to waive overdue interest.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 350 paragraph 2 of the Enforcement and Execution Act; Article 15 of the Enforcement and Execution Act: An appeal alleging a fundamental procedural violation is inadmissible if the underlying legal entity continues to exist, even if its registered seat has changed.

Keywords

AI generated
enforcement procedure fundamental procedural violation non-existent company change of registered seat security deposit enforcement waiver of interest appeal dismissal

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 350 paragraph 2 of the Enforcement and Execution Act
Article 15 of the Enforcement and Execution Act
Article 365 of the Enforcement and Execution Act
AI generated
VSC Sklep I Ip 14/2022
Appeal dismissed; court cannot consider new evidence of payment not raised in original objection under enforcement law.
VSL Sklep I Ip 265/2018
Appeal allowed; enforcement court bound by formal title regarding beneficiaries despite missing factual findings.
VSC sklep II Ip 831/2007
Court dismisses appeals on enforcement costs and tax exemption, upholding first-instance rulings under ZPP and ZIZ.
VSL sklep Cpg 1303/95
Appeal dismissed; enforcement court cannot annul validity certificates issued in mandate proceedings.
VSM sklep I Ip 245/2013
Appeal dismissed; debtor failed to request alternative enforcement under ZIZ Art. 169, so wage garnishment remains valid.

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]

Pritožbeno sodišče je po vpogledu v sodni register ugotovilo, da je upnik vanj še vpisan, le sedež je bil spremenjen (prim. uvod tega sklepa). Smiselno uveljavljana bistvena kršitev postopka, češ da postopek nadaljuje neobstoječa gospodarska družba, tako ni podana.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Sodišče prve stopnje je z izpodbijanim sklepom določilo izvršitelja in višino predujma, ki ga je naložilo v plačilo upniku. Proti temu sklepu je vložila pravočasen ugovor dolžnica. V pritožbi uveljavlja razlog bistvene kršitve določb postopka. Pritožbenemu sodišču smiselno predlaga razveljavitev sklepa. Pritožba ni utemeljena. Pritožbeno sodišče je po vpogledu v sodni register ugotovilo, da je upnik vanj še vpisan, le sedež je bil spremenjen (prim. uvod tega sklepa). Smiselno uveljavljana bistvena kršitev postopka, češ da postopek nadaljuje neobstoječa gospodarska družba, tako ni podana.

Pritožbeni predlog, naj sodišče dolžnico oprosti plačila zamudnih obresti zaradi šibkega finančnega stanja, pa ne more biti uspešen. Kolikšna je dolgovana obveznost niti ni predmet tega pritožbenega postopka, saj je bil z izpodbijanim sklepom določen le izvršitelj in pa predujem za stroške oprave izvršbe, ki jih mora založiti upnik. Tako se izkaže, da izrecno uveljavljani pritožbeni razlogi niso podani. Izpodbijani sklep je pritožbeno sodišče preizkusilo še v okviru uradoma upoštevnih razlogov. (2. odst. 350. čl. ZPP/99 v zvezi s 15.

čl. ZIZ). Pri tem je ugotovilo, da ti niso podani. Zato je odločilo, kot je razvidno iz izreka sklepa (2. tč. 365. čl. ZPP/99 v zvezi s 15. čl. ZIZ).