Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Sklep III DoR 2/2009 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2009:III.DOR.2.2009 AI generated

Supreme Court dismisses debtor's request for leave to appeal in enforcement proceedings as appeals are not permitted there.

Case Number Sklep III DoR 2/2009
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court of Slovenia rejected the debtor's request for leave to appeal a second-instance judgment rendered in enforcement proceedings. The debtor argued for the right to appeal, but the court noted that the enforcement procedure explicitly prohibits appeals under the Enforcement and Security Act. Consequently, the court ruled that since appeals are legally unavailable in this context, the request must be dismissed, and the debtor bears the associated costs.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

10. člen Zakona o izvršbi in zavarovanju; 367. člen Zakona o pravdnem postopku: In enforcement proceedings, leave to appeal is not permitted, and any request for such leave must be dismissed with the applicant bearing the costs.

Keywords

AI generated
enforcement proceedings leave to appeal prohibition of appeal costs of request supreme court decision

Cited Legislation

AI generated
10. člen Zakona o izvršbi in zavarovanju
367. člen Zakona o pravdnem postopku
15. člen Zakona o izvršbi in zavarovanju
38. člen Zakona o izvršbi in zavarovanju
154. člen Zakona o pravdnem postopku
AI generated
VSRS Sklep X Ips 235/2015
Appeal dismissed because environmental service concession case lacks monetary value for monetary appeal threshold.
Sklep X Ips 11/2013
Supreme Court dismisses review due to failure to specify legal issue and prove severe consequences under ZUS-1.
Sklep X Ips 216/2009
Supreme Court dismisses appeal as non-essential legal issue under ZUS-1 Article 83(2).
Sklep X Ips 99/2012
Supreme Court dismisses appeal for lack of significant legal issue and clear statutory answer.
VSRS Sklep II DoR 536/2020
Appeal dismissed because applicant failed to prove she holds a valid lawyer's state exam license.

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

Predlog se zavrže.

Dolžnik krije sam svoje stroške predloga za dopustitev revizije.

[JEDRO]

Ker v postopku izvršbe revizija ni dovoljena, je sodišče ne more dopustiti.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Dolžnik je Vrhovnemu sodišču podal predlog za dopustitev revizije proti sklepu (sam ga sicer očitno napačno poimenuje kot sodbo) sodišča druge stopnje, ki je bil izdan v postopku izvršbe.

2. Ker v postopku izvršbe revizija ni dovoljena (prvi odstavek 10. člena Zakona o izvršbi in zavarovanju (v nadaljevanju ZIZ)), je sodišče ne more dopustiti (četrti odstavek 367. člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku (v nadaljevanju ZPP) v zvezi s 15. členom ZIZ).

3. Po pravilih 38. člena ZIZ ter prvega odstavka 154. člena ZPP v zvezi s 15. členom ZIZ dolžnik sam krije stroške svojega predloga za dopustitev revizije.