Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSL sklep II Cpg 839/2000 ECLI:SI:VSLJ:2000:II.CPG.839.2000 AI generated

Appeal granted; enforcement halted because creditor failed to post advance payment for enforcement costs within the statutory deadline.

Case Number VSL sklep II Cpg 839/2000
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Partially Allowed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The appellate court granted the creditor's appeal and revoked the first-instance decision that had halted enforcement. The creditor argued they posted the required advance payment for enforcement costs on June 23, 2000, after receiving the enforcement notice on June 19, 2000. The court found this timeline compliant with the law, concluding that the initial suspension lacked legal basis and was therefore erroneous.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 38, paragraph 3 of the Enforcement and Security Act; Article 365, paragraph 3 of the Civil Procedure Act: A suspension of enforcement based on a creditor's failure to post an advance payment is invalid if the creditor subsequently posts the payment within the legally prescribed period.

Keywords

AI generated
enforcement suspension advance payment requirement enforcement costs civil procedure appeal statutory deadline compliance

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 38, paragraph 3 of the Enforcement and Security Act (ZIZ)
Article 365, paragraph 3 of the Civil Procedure Act (ZPP)
AI generated
VSL sklep III Cp 1285/2000
Enforcement suspended due to failure to pay advance costs; appeal dismissed as payment not proven.
VSL sklep III Cp 655/2000
Appeal dismissed; enforcement suspended due to failure to pay advance execution costs after proper notice.
VSC sklep I Ip 28/2008
Court allows late enforcement cost claim where creditor reasonably anticipated future costs despite procedural delay.
VSL sklep III Cp 66/00
Appeal allowed; court permits creditor to prove advance payment in appeal to reinstate enforcement.
VSC sklep II Ip 526/2007
Appeal dismissed; seizure of movable property justified as executor unaware of creditor's withdrawal request.

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

Pritožbi se ugodi in se izpodbijani sklep razveljavi.

[JEDRO]

Ker je upnik v roku založil predujem za stroške izvršitelja, ni bilo podlage za ustavitev izvršbe.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Sodišče prve stopnje je z izpodbijanim sklepom razveljavilo izvršbo, ker naj upnik ne bi bil založil predujma za stroške izvršitelja. Upnik se je zoper sklep pravočasno pritožil in navedel, da je predujem založil dne 23.6.2000. Pritožba je utemeljena. Pritožbeno sodišče ugotavlja, da je upnik sklep o določitvi izvršitelja s pozivom na založitev predujma prejel dne 19.6.2000, predujem pa je založil dne 23.6.2000 (nalog za prenos Agencije RS za plačilni promet na list. št. 9), kot pravilno zatrjuje v pritožbi. S tem je upnik svojo dolžnost iz 3. odst. 38. čl. Zakona o izvršbi in zavarovanju (ZIZ) izpolnil, kar izhaja tudi iz uradnega zaznamka sodišča prve stopnje na pritožbi (list. št. 12), zato ni bilo podlage za ustavitev izvršbe. Ker je odločitev sodišča prve stopnje napačna, je sodišče druge stopnje na podlagi 3. odst. 365. čl. Zakona o pravdnem postopku - ZPP v zvezi s 15. čl. ZIZ upnikovi pritožbi ugodilo in izpodbijani sklep razveljavilo.